I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice:

I second.

Agreed to.

This Bill although a measure of public policy adversely affects the private rights of persons in the localities dealt with. It must therefore be treated as a hybrid Bill and at this stage be referred to the Examiners for report in terms of Standing Order No. 182. Subsequently, if allowed to proceed, it must, in terms of Standing Order No. 183, be referred to a Select Committee after second reading.

I am sure we are glad to note the exuberance which still survives amongst members after an all-night sitting. I hope that the somewhat lengthy statement I am about to make will not have a soporific effect. In asking the indulgence of the House to state to them the case I am about to outline let me say that the case is one of particular importance to the native population, the tribal natives, the primitive native of South Africa. I move—

1. (a) the setting aside by the Department of Native Affairs wrongfully of the rights of Mzwangedwa Mlaba, the lawful heir to the chieftainship, and the subsequent appointment, contrary to native law, in supercession of Mzwangedwa Mlaba, the direct heir to the chieftainship, of a collateral relative of the former chief Mdepa;
2. (b) the grave provocation and acts of public violence to which Mzwangedwa’s supporters were subjected by the opposing section before defensive acts took place, as proved by the finding of judges of the Native High Court, and the acquittal by the Hon. Mr. Justice Brokensha of the seventy men of Mzwangedwa’s section charged before him;
3. (c) the rejection by the Department of Native Affairs of the decision of the board of enquiry appointed by the Minister which found that Mzwangedwa Mlaba was the lawful heir, according to native law; and
4. (d) the treatment of the main body of the tribe subsequent to the appointment of the new chief.

The tribe to which I have referred has presented a respectful petition to this House, which lies upon the Table for the consideration of hon. members. This approach to Parliament by one of the primitive peoples who come under our rule illustrates the elasticity of Section 147 of the South Africa Act,—it provides an example of how an aboriginal people of this country may, with duteous restraint, expresses a dissident view against the treatment it has suffered from the Department of Native Affairs, and present its appeal for relief. Before European rule was extended to that part of South Africa in which the Ximba Tribe was first found—it must be remembered that the Natives had had no experience of European rule and naturally had no confidence in its principles. Before the arrival of the Europeans in the early part of the 19th century, the Zulu tyrant Chaka had decimated and dispersed most of the tribes then living in the territory now known as Natal. There is in existence a map showing the areas which were occupied by the tribes in Natal before the Chaka invasion. This was prepared by Mr. (later Sir) Theophilus Shepstone in 1864 and the positions of the native areas held in trust for the natives today correspond very closely with their ancestral sites then located. After the misrule following the Chaka invasion Native Law and tribal organisation had fallen into disuse, chiefs had been killed and in some instances remnants of dispersed tribes were without chiefs. This was the position of the Ximba Tribe when European rule was first introduced. At this stage the Natives had been robbed of the benefits they enjoyed under their own system of living, and they had become wanderers—their laws under which their birthright and their primitive measure of protection were guaranteed to them had become of no effect through their changed circumstances. In the past their Chief had been the expression of the outlook of his people, and their well-being and good government were dependent in a pathetic degree upon his strength, his personality, and the policy he pursued. When European rule was introduced one of the proclamations first issued in Natal by Goveror West on the 21st June, 1849 declared in the name of the Queen—

In every subsequent constitution for the Government of Natal from the Crown Colony period to the introduction of Union in 1910, there are pledges to the Native tribal peoples that their lands will be held in trust for them by the successive Governments established, and that the trusteeship of their land and the powers of a supreme Chief over the Native population hitherto exercised by the Governor of the Colony shall, under the South Africa Act, continue to be exercised by the Union Governor-General-in-Council. These pledges and principles are expressed in Section 147 in the Act of Union, and when some of us have spoken of the policy of trusteeship as the foundation of our native rule we have had in mind the faithful beneficient administration of this clause of our constitution. Hon. members of this House will have an opportunity of judging whether the treatment of the main body of the Ximba Tribe by the Department of Native Affairs since 1930 has been animated by a spirit of trusteeship or by an attitude of considered hostility towards a defenceless section whose only appeal lies to this House. Confronted with the situation existing among the Natives in Natal when Governor West’s proclamation of 1849 was issued the Government of that period decided to re-establish the tribes, and provide for their government according to Native Law. In this matter they were guided by the advice of Mr. Shepstone,—whose experience in Native matters, dating from his early service under Sir Harry Smith, at the time of the Hintza troubles (1835) had been among the Amaxosa, Fingo, Tembu, and Pondo peoples with whose language and customs he was thoroughly conversant. In the policy of re-construction in Natal the Governor as Supreme Chief over the natives, appointed three sons of Mabhoyi (who was not a chief himself) as chiefs over separate sections of the Ximba tribe. The sons had rendered invaluable service to the then Department of Native Affairs and their appointments were in recognition of their service: (1) Mqundane, better known as “Capt. Jantyi” whose services were exceptional, was first appointed as chief over the main body of the Ximba tribe near Table Mountain, Camperdown district, the ancestral home of the Ximba people in Natal. After his services in the Zulu War he was granted a tract of land in Zululand (Mahalabatini district). The present heir, Makhaukana, grandson of Mqundane, lives there to this day. (2) Mdepa for his services was appointed as chief at Table Mountain, Camperdown district, in succession to Mqundane when the latter went further afield, prior to and during the Zulu War. Mdepa ruled his people wisely for 40 years. On his death the Government appointed his granson Tutuma, who ruled for nine years. His heir Mzwangedwa is the present claimant to the chieftainship. The present heir Mzwangedwa, the great grandson of Mdepa, was first acknowledged by the Government in 1929 as the heir, a regent being appointed during his minority. He was subsequently dispossessed without notice, and without any cause being assigned therefor. (3) Mhalanya, for his services, was appointed as chief of the smallest native area near Swartkop, Pietermaritzburg. When Chief Langalibalele, Eascourt district, was deposed in the seventies for rebellion, Mahlanya was sent to his area as chief over the dismembered tribe there. His own area near Swartkop was left in charge of one of his minor sons. The Department of Native Affairs in 1929 decided to restore the Langalibalele heir as Chief over the tribe at Estcourt and in making provision for Mahlanya’s heir the Department prevailed upon Mciteki then Chief at Swartkop to relinquish his chieftainship in favour of Mahlanya’s heir from Estcourt, one Bhekamatshe. The Department decided that Bhekamatshe should be Chief over Mdepa’s people as well. This act is the cause of the whole bitter dispute between the heirs of Mahlanya and Mdepa. Mdepa’s people as a tribe were never consulted as to the amalgamation of the two tribes and at no stage were they notified by the Department of the disappearance of their separate chieftainship or the reasons therefor. The present heir is Manzolwandhle (son of Bhekamatshe and great-grandson of Mahlanya. In speaking of the three chiefs chosen, let me say they were not chosen for any hereditary qualifications for they had no such claim to preferment—their father being a commoner. Their service alone constituted their merit. And the first to be appointed, Jantyi or Mqundane, was a man whose reputation as an intrepid leader of native mounted men was known to the public far beyond the boundaries of Natal. Before the Native Laws and Customs Commission at Cape Town, when Sir Theophilus Shepstone was giving evidence in 1881, he was asked by Sir Thomas Upington: “Of what tribe are Jantyi’s people who accompanied the British troops into Zululand during the late war?” They are of Zulu origin, resident in Natal. “How do they hold their lands?” One section of them is on a location…. This was just before Jantyi was granted a tract of land in Zululand, where he ended his days. From what I have said it will be seen that the original 3 chiefs were given distinct areas: (1) Mqundane’s final area is in the heart of Zululand; (2) Mdepa’s area is near Table Mountain in the Camperdown district, and is the home of the Ximba people; (3) Mahlanya’s area, the smallest of all, is near Swartkop, Pietermaritzburg, 35 miles distant from Mdepa’s people. The complaints of the main body of the Ximba tribe are embodied in paragraphs 1-10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-19 of their petition, which I shall quote for the consideration of hon. members.

1. (1) Your petitioner Mzwangedwa Mlaba is the lawful heir to the chieftainship of the aforesaid Ximba tribe.
2. (2) His rights were recognised by the Department of Native Affairs upon the death in or about the year 1929 of his father, Chief Tutuma.
3. (3) That owing to his minority Lwi Mlaba, Tutuma’s brother, was appointed to act as Regent on his behalf during his minority.
4. (4) If your Petitioner had not been a minor he would have been appointed Chief forthwith.
5. (5) In or about the year 1930 the Department, without any reason whatever, and without advising your Petitioner Mzwangedwa, or any meeting of the Ximba Tribe, transferred Bhekamatshe Chief of a section of the Ximba Tribe near Estcourt, Natal to Camperdown and purported to put him in charge of your Petitioner’s tribe at Camperdown.
6. (6) No meeting of the Tribe was called and no notification of any sort was given, your Petitioner and other members of the Tribe being under the impression that Bhekamatshe was only acting as Regent in substitution for Charlie Mlaba who is a man of very advanced years, during the minority of your Petitioner Mzwangedwa.
7. (7) The acting Chief Native Commissioner for Natal recently informed your Petitioners that in fact Mzwangedwa’s rights were set aside, and that Bhekamatshe was appointed Chief and not Regent in 1930.
8. (8) That when this appointment was made, in accordance with the usual practice a meeting of the Tribe should have been called either to consult the members or to advise them of the change, but no such meeting was called.
9. (9) When giving evidence on oath before the Hon. Mr. Justice Thrash in the Natal Native High Court in Pietermaritzburg, Natal, in June 1943, Benjamin Martin acting Chief Native Commissioner for Natal agreed that there would be ample room for an understanding amongst the Ximba Tribe of Camperdown that Bhekamatshe had been appointed Regent only during Mzwangedwa’s minority.
10. (10) Colonel Martin also admitted that there was nothing to justify any change as far as he knew and in fact no reason existed. He also said it would be possible to appoint both Mzwangedwa and Manzolwandhle as Chiefs in this area, but that the Department had not so far considered this matter.
11. (11) It was only upon the death of Bhekamatshe towards the end of 1942 that the tribe was informed for the first time that Bhekamatshe had in fact been appointed as Chief when he was transferred in or about 1930 and that his son Manzolwandhle was to succeed him as Chief of the Ximba Tribe.
12. (12) The majority of the members immediately protested and profound dissatisfaction exists as a result.
13. (14) In the case of trouble the authorities take the side of the supporters of Manzolwandha, so much so that your Petitioners are afraid to defend themselves when attacked by Manzolwandhle’s supportes.
14. (15) As a result of the fighting, hut burning and the making of pressing represenations the Minister of Native Affairs appointed a Board of Enquiry which, after investigation and the hearing of evidence, found that Mzwangedwa was the lawful heir to the Chieftainship and recommended his appointment, but the Department of Native Affairs has rejected this decision and the recommendations made.

You say I appointed a Commission. What date was that?

That was the statement of the petitioner from which I am reading. I was under the same impression in view of what had happened; when the Minister gave the Natives an interview in Durban, but the Minister has corrected that in this House. He has indicated that the appointment was made by the Chief Native Commissioner.

Why repeat it now if I corrected it?

I am quoting to the House what the petitioner says. The hon. Minister would not have me misrepresent or mis-read the actual contents of the petition. I am merely stating what the petition says.

1. (17) At that meeting (12th September, 1944), the acting Chief Native Commissioner made threats against the spporters of Mzwangedwa in the following words: “ …. if there is any further trouble from those who refused to listen to the words of the Government it will be you who will suffer and not the Government … ” “ … if there is any more faction fighting and destruction of life and property, I will order the troops to come in and wipe out the lot of you … ” “ … if there is any more nonsense the might of the Law will be brought against you … ” “ … I hope you leaders will bring home the facts to this band of rebels otherwise they will be destroyed ….”
2. (18) Because they supported the legitimate claims of Mzwangedwa the majority of the Tribe are subjected to insults, threats and assaults by Manzolwandhle’s supporters, who are encouraged by the facts that the authorities support them, and because the acting Chief Native Commissioner himself threatened them with destruction if there was any further trouble.
3. (19) Leading senior members of the Tribe who have protested against the Department’s actions have been threatened with deportation from the area, which would result in their losing sites which would have been established as their homes for generations.
4. (20) The acting Chief Native Commissioner endeavoured to justify the Department’s action, ex post facto, by advancing a claim that Manzolwandhle, the Department’s nominee, as heir of a collateral branch of the family is entitled to succeed to the Chieftainship in priority to the direct lineal heir of Chief Mdepa, who was the grandfather of the Tutuma referred to in Paragraph 2.
5. (21) This claim has only to be stated for its invalidity to be demonstrated.

For the purpose of grouping the complaints set forth in my Notice of Motion in the order in which I have specified them, let me refer to them seriatim. At no time did the Department of Native Affairs notify the Petitioner or his Regent of any ground whatsoever for the setting aside of his rights or of any intention to abolish the chieftainship or depose or retire him therefrom, or to amalgamate the Swartkop section of the tribe with the main body (Mdepa’s people) in the Camperdown District. Under statutory provision the Supreme Chief is empowered to amalgamate tribes, “as necessity or the good government of the natives may in his opinion require”. But in this intance there was no “necessity” as the Native area which had been allotted to Bhekamatshe’s grandfather Mahlanya at Swartkop was available to him on his removal from the Estcourt District. Moreover the ground “of the good government of the natives” could not serioulsy be advanced to justify such a step, in view of the known record of Chief Mdepa and the heirs who had succeeded him. The serious comments by Judge President Thrash, of the Native High Court indicate clearly his conclusions as to the trouble caused by the decision to displace Mzwangedwa. Judge President Thrash, before he was called to the Bar had lived, in the Camperdown District and knew the Chiefs Mdepa and Mquandane personally. On the 16th June 1943 in the course of his judgment in a charge against Mzwangedwa’s men His Lordship said—

In passing sentence the Judge directed that the hard labour sentences imposed on the rank and file of Mzwangedwa’s men—without the option of a fine—were to be suspended for three years. Colonel Martin, himself, Acting Chief Native. Commissioner, Natal wrote a minute to the Secretary for Native Affairs in which he strongly condemned the action of the Chief Native Commissioner, Natal, who had in 1930 recommended the course which has formed the subject of the present dispute. The Board of Enquiry (1944) in discussing whether the Department’s appointment of Manzolwandhle should stand, stated on 7th February, 1944—

adding that the other section (Mdepa’s)

“were suffering under a serious grievance as they have lost their tribal entity in spite of their protest.”

In his evidence before the Board of Enquiry the Officer in Charge of the Police (J. H. Rossouw), who is the Public Prosecutor at Camperdown, spoke of all the strife and trouble between the two sections and concluded—

The Department of Native Affairs set aside Mzwangedwa’s rights in 1930 without disclosing any reason therefor, but the Petitioners were only notified officially of this decision 14 years afterwards, as is shown by paragraph 7 of the Petition. On the 14th August 1930, the Governor-General-in-Council approved under the Native Administration Act 1927 of—

1. (a) The Amalgamation of the sections of the Ximba Tribe in the Camperdown and Pietermaritzburg Districts at present under Acting Chief Lwiyi Mlaba and Chief Mciteki, respectively;
2. (b) the retirement on the ground of abolition of offices of Acting Chief Mciteki and the appointment of Bekamatye as Chief over the amalgamated sections of the Ximba Tribe with civil jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act, and
3. (c) the amalgamation of the section of the Ximba Tribe in the Estcourt District at present under Chief Bekamatye with the Hlutyini Tribe under Chief Tatazela in the same District having effect from the date of announcement of the change in each case.

It will be noted that although there is a specific reference to the retirement of acting Chief Mciteki in the resolution of the Governor-General-in-Council there is nothing to denote that Acting Chief Lwi was either deposed or retired yet the “Short History of the Ximba Tribes” states that the rights of Mzwangedwa, for whom Lwi was acting, were entirely set aside in 1930, though there is no mention of any reason having existed for such a step. Let me deal with the Minister’s refusal to lay certain papers on the Table. Never in my 25 years’ experience in this House have I heard a Minister so light-heartedly refuse to lay papers on the Table which are germane to the consideration of a matter which has come before the House. I am not going to delay the House by quoting authorities, although they can be quoted, to show that no such light-hearted attitude towards a serious public duty can be adopted by a Minister of the Crown. He can only plead that it would be against the public interest to produce a document, but such a plea would be preposterous in this instance. I merely mention this matter to show what inconvenience has resulted, to members of this House and to me personally. The Minister said I was at liberty to persue this document in his own office. I went there, and what did I find? There was produced to me a history of the Ximba tribes, which is a totally different document from the one which the Commissioner in Natal handed over to a member of the Native Representative Council. The Minister, to my mind, implies a contempt for this House which members do not deserve, when he allows a member of his Department, his spokesman in Natal, to hand out that document to a member of the Native Representative Council whilst he refuses to place a copy on the Table. I do not demur to his letting a member of the Native Representative Council see the document, but if that is being done every member of this House is more than entitled to have a copy of the identical document laid on the Table where it can be made use of in the preparation of whatever views we may choose to express to this House. That opportunity has not been offorded any single member of this House. Through the courtesy of the Acting Secretary for Native Affairs I have seen the doucment which the Minister described in the House, though I have not had an opportunity of persuing it to the end. It is a document compiled after the event. It is a history written to show that the Department is right when it is irretrievably wrong. Moreover, the document shown to me in Cape Town told a different story from the one embodied in the “Short History of the Ximba Tribes” circulated by the Chief Native Commissioner. The latter document was evidently intended to be used among the natives, and its references to the Archives did not quote a single statement from Sir Theophilus Shepstone himself. The Minister stated in the House that the history shown to me at Cape Town was completely reliable and named the compilers of it. What is to be said of the history circulated to the natives, which differs widely from the “completely reliable” one? Under paragraph (a) of my Notice of Motion, reference is made to the improper appointment of a chief over the Ximba tribe in the Camperdown district. There is no order on record whereby the Governor-General-in-Council (in his capacity as Supreme Chief over the natives) deposed or retired the Acting Chief-Regent Lwi or Mzwangedwa who was nominated as heir by the main body of the tribe and accepted by the Government who appointed his uncle Lwi as regent. The order of the Governor-General-in-Council, which I have quoted (though it does not depose the Acting Chief Lwi), expressly decrees the retirement of Acting Chief Mciteki and the appointment of Bhekamatsche as chief over the amalgamated sections! The appointment of Bhekamatshe, and after his death the succession of his son, Manzolwandhle, to the Chieftainship over the main body of the Ximba tribe, constitutes a total disregard of native law which in practice excludes any collateral relation from succeeding where there are male heirs in the direct line. The Department of Native Affairs itself had recognised that Mzwangedwa was the male heir in the direct line from his great grandfather Mdepa, but they now advised the Governor-General-in-Council to appoint Manzolwandhle whose claims the Department has sought to justify on the ground that he is the senior representative of the family of Mabhoyi who was not even a chief. No person with the slightest knowledge of native law would seriously contend that a claim by a collateral descendant can be maintained against the claims of male heirs in the direct line. Since tabling my Notice of Motion, I have received confirmatory evidence on this point from three outtsanding authorities on native law whose long experience in the highest judicial positions dealing with native civil appeals and native litigation qualify them pre-eminently to express an opinion on this subject.

Will the hon. member let me have the names of the authorities?

I am not going to be drawn into a discursive argument. A Select Committee can judge of the worth of all opinions expressed. I am satisfied with the authorities because of their experience, and the Minister himself would be glad if he could quote any one of them on his side, instead of those imponderable departmental authorities whose want of knowledge of Native law is the cause of the trouble.

You quoted them as big authorities and I thought you might give me their names.

Perhaps the Minister will say he is prepared to pit his opinion against the opinions I am quoting?—

Opinion No. 2 (1) …. “I am in a position to say that under the law of succession in the case of Native Chiefs no claimant by a collateral relation can succeed as long as male heirs in the direct line are available …. any attempt to depart from this old-established law or usage …. burns into the very soul of people who have experienced anything of the kind. I am in a position to say that through inexperience and a lack of understanding and appreciation of the law on the subject by District Officers charged with the administration of Native Affairs in the Northern Transvaal, many successions have been travestied and have resulted in far-reaching discontent among the tribes affected.”

Opinion No. 3 …. “It is not the practice to appoint a man from the collateral line in preference to one of direct descent, but although I cannot recall a typical case at the moment, you will recall the many appointments made to fill the places of deposed chiefs as the result of the Bambata rebellion. That status, quo has been restored in most of these cases but not all.”

The cases mentioned by my correspondent are those of the appointed chiefs who were in the nature of stop-gaps immediately after the Bambata rebellion. Most of the heirs have been restored in such tribes as the Qwabe, the two sections of the Embo. the Ntuli, the Nyuswa, the Kuze, and, I believe, all excepting the Gcumisa. Giving evidence before the Native Laws and Customs Commission in 1881, Sir Theophilus Shepstone answered this question from another angle. When dealing with succession to Chieftainship he was asked “suppose, however, that male issue did fail?” to which he replied “then the heir will come from some collateral branch of the family, not descended through the daughters.” The decision of the Department of Native Affairs to disregard this cardinal rule of native law and to advise the Governor-General-in-Council to appoint a Chief in disregard of this vital law of succession causes the natives who have suffered the injustice to regard such a decision as a purely despotic one. The autocracy of this action exceeds that of a Zulu Despot. The ex King of the Zulus Cetywayo giving evidence before the Native Laws and Customs Commission was asked whether he had the power to act independently of the Chiefs in making an appointment, replied—

He also said—

Among the acts of provocation and public violence to which Mzwangedwa’s supporters were subjected by the opposing section, before the defensive acts took place, it is well-known that the huts of Nini and Sihlobo were burnt on the 28th February 1943. Mr. Justice Thrash after speaking of the appointment by the Government of Manzolwandhle said—

When the report of this hut burning was being made to the Police Chief Manzolwandhle’s Induna, Cakide, was present and he alleged that Mapewu and Nomvakela, two members of the same faction as the complainant had burnt the kraal. On this statement they were arrested and only released some days afterwards. No person was prosecuted for the burning of this kraal. Six days thereafter the huts of Cijinkunzi were burnt down by an armed band of Manzolwandhle’s people. A black heifer at his kraal was stabbed to death at the same time. The matter was reported to the Police but no prosecution took place for the burning or the stabbing of the heifer. Early in March 1943, before any faction fight had occurred, Khekhe Maduna was attacked by an armed force of Manzolwandhle’s section at the kraal of his neighbour Mcitwa Zondi. Khekhe received shot gun wounds and Tshutshutshu Zondi received a mortal gun shot wound from which he died on the spot. Khekhe was taken to hospital where the pellets were extracted. He was able to identify his assailant and made a statment to the Police. There was no prosecution against his assailant or the persons responsible for the killing of Tshutshuthsu. It was not until the 7th March 1943 that Mzwangedwa’s section retaliated. The differing treatment of the combatants was commented upon by Mr. Justice Thrash. Addressing the accused, Mzwangedwa’s adherents he said—

This shows there were repeated acts of provocation against Mzwangedwa’s people before any faction fighting took place. The Police took no action for the prosecution of the accused persons. On the other hand, Mzwangedwa’s adherents were prosecuted and committed for trial before the Native High Court. The piecemeal prosecution provoked unfavourable comment by the Judge. For the second time Mzwangedwa’s followers alone were brought before the Native High Court for trial in 1944. Justice Brokensha of the Native High Court tried 70 natives of the Mzwangedwa’s section who had been accused by the opposing faction of “public violence” in August, 1943. The trial was not concluded until June, 1944. In the interim most of the accused (70 men) had to provide £10 bail which proved a heavy tax on their resources. Not one of the opposing side was arrested. The Judge speaks of the action of two of Manzolwandhle’s indunas who arrived with a party of Manzolwandhle’s supporters at a wedding ceremony at which the attendance of either faction had been forbidden by the Police. His Lordship said—

His judgment mentions no acts of provocation for which the Mzwangedwa’s section were responsible. After having heard 128 witnesses involving a period of four weeks the Judge concluded—

In the course the trial defending counsel denounced the prosecution as an attempt to bring into operation the suspended sentences imposed by Judge-President Thrash. The magistrate (Native Commissioner), Camperdown, who first recommended that Manzolwandhle should be appointed as chief was so inexperienced in native administration that the farmers’ associations in the Camperdown district asked me to remonstrate against his being transferred to succeed the then magistrate, Mr. Phillips, and I submitted their protest to the Minister of Justice. The 70 natives of the Mdepa people, who were obliged to pay £700 for their defence in the Native High Court against an insupportable charge, felt very strongly that Mr. Burton had committed them for trial on insufficient evidence, and his attitude towards the Mzwangedwa people in this and other instances intensified the bitterness of their lot. Had the two Judges of the Native High Court been sitting as a judicial commission they could scarcely have pronounced a more conclusive condemnation of the treatment of Mzwangedwa’s section by the Camperdown authorities. It will be convenient here to deal with the enquiry held by a board of three appointed to hear the evidence of the natives and make recommendations to the Department of Native Affairs. This enquiry was brought about through my having appealed to the Minister of Native Affairs to grant the aggrieved natives an interview on the occasion of his first official visit to Natal. The appointment was actually made by the Chief Native Commissioner, Natal, under Section 24 of the Code of Native Law, and Messrs. H. P. Braatvedt, J. P. Rawlinson, and G. F. Kirby were appointed. The hearing of evidence in open court and the attitude of the members of the Board created confidence. The first report of the Board dated 7th February, 1944, proposed a solution of the difficulty in the following manner:

1. (1) The appointment of Mzwangedwa as Chief of the main body of the Ximba tribe in Camperdown district.
2. (2) The appointment of Manzolwandhle as chief over the Ximba tribe at Swartkop.

The Board’s report disclosed that in 1930 when the Department of Native Affairs sought to restore the Hlubi chieftainship to the heir of the former Chief Langalibalele in the Estcourt district, it was found necessary to make provision for Mahlanya’s heir, Bhekamatshe who had succeeded his grandfather as chief of Langalibalele’s area. To provide for his return to the original allotment of his grandfather, at Swartkop, Acting Chief Mciteki voluntarily resigned, thus placing Swartkop native area at Bhekamatshe’s disposal. The Board commented upon the fact that when the Chief Native Commissioner, Natal, wrote to the Native Commissioner, Camperdown, to consult him about appointing Bhekamatshe as Chief in the native area there, he stated on two occasions that Bhekamatshe had no native area or location land for his people—and when the Native Commissioner, Camperdown, ultimately fell in with the suggestion of the Chief Native Commissioner, he placed on record that he only agreed—

Actually this was not the case, for the native area originally allotted to Bhekamatshe’s grandfather, Mahlanya, near Swartkop, was available since Acting Chief Mciteki had relinquished it. Thus the principal, if not the only reason put forward to the Camperdown Native Commissioner by the then Chief Native Commissioner for the amalgamation was an insubstantial one not existing in fact. Mciteki, who had acted as Chief at Swartkop, stated before the Board that none of his followers had even lived in Mdepa’s area, Camperdown district. The recommendation of the Board obviously aimed at restoring to the Mdepa people through the heir Mzwangedwa, the chieftainship and tribal entity of which they had been deprived, largely through the incorrect statement that Bhekamatshe had no native area or location land for his people. The Board in commending their settlement to the Government added that the Mzwangedwa’s section recognised Manzolwandhle as the principal chief, but from my perusual of the evidence taken down by the Board, I found no statement to warrant such a conclusion.

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

Afternoon Sitting,

When business was suspended I was dealing with the report of the Board of enquiry and hon. members will probably be glad to hear that I have not very much more to say. After the report of the Board of Enquiry, dated 7th February, 1944, had been forwarded to the Secretary for Native Affairs, there was a considerable interval. Some time later, 1st April, 1944, a most extraordinary step was taken by Col. Martin, Acting Chief Native Commissioner, Natal. With the concurrence of the Secretary for Native Affairs he placed before the members of the Board of Enquiry an ex parte statement from the Native Commissioner, Camperdown (whose attitude towards the subject of enquiry was well understood) that Manzolwandhle’s followers outnumbered the supporters of Mzwangedwa and drew the deduction that if the latter were appointed the stronger section would overthrow them. This ex parte statement was not given in the form of evidence before the Board—there was no appearance in open court by the author of the statement and no opportunity was given of refuting a statement which, from the nature of the case, was not founded on the best evidence, or indeed any evidence at all. The tax records at Camperdown do not disclose which of the Ximba taxpayers are supporters of Mzwangedwa. The figures supplied by the Native Commissioner, Camperdown were purely guesswork, and worthless as evidence. When the action of the Chief Native Commissioner was disclosed to me I said at once—

I wrote accordingly to the Secretary for Native Affairs and informed him that I had suggested to Col. Martin that a proper census of the two factions should be taken on separate days under circumstances which would leave no doubt as to the correctness of the figures. When discussing the latter suggestion with Colonel Martin I understood that he favoured it but as he was going on leave he could not undertake the census until his return. I was forced to the conclusion that the Department preferred not to ascertain the correct numbers. I did not again hear from col. Martin on this matter, but the second report of the Board of Enquiry dated 18th April 1944 shows that the Board had been influenced by the statement emanating for the Native Commissioner, Camperdown, and by the series of questions posed to the Board of Enquiry by the Acting Chief Commissioner on the statement in question. The members of the Board were thus persuaded to recommend that the appointment of Manzolwandhle should stand, and they adopted a suggestion emanating from the Chief Native Commissioner that a stipend of £36 per annum should be paid to Mzwangedwa. Upon receipt of the Board’s second report dated 18th April 1944 arrived at upon the extraordinary set of representations to which I have referred, the Minister of Native Affairs decided to ignore the first report, and to adhere to the decision to appoint Manzolwandhle. By this time the Acting Chief Native Commissioner who had seldom, if ever, come into contact with Mzwangedwa reported unfavourably upon his fitness for the appointment. But_ the testimony of a leading landowner in the District on this matter, Mr. Meyer, gives another and less biassed view of Mzwangedwa. He writes—

This landowner is no easy task master and he is not likely to give praise where no praise is due and his view of this young man Mzwangedwa is as I have read it here. When Colonel Martin held a meeting at Camperdown on 12th September 1944 to announce the decision of the Government to confirm the appointment of Manzolwandhle, he referred in Zulu to the former announcement of Bhekamatshe’s appointment in these words—

When however, he announced Manzolwandhle’s appointment and warned certain native leaders of the possibility of deportation, a large section of those present expressed their dissent and dissatisfaction. The dissatisfied section, which were in the majority left the meeting causing considerable disorder. At that meeting Colonel Martin’s outline of the history omitted any reference to the first report of the Board of Enquiry and was in striking contradiction to his own evidence given on oath before the Native High Court. A report of what took place appeared in the “Natal Witness” of the 13th September 1944 in which it was stated that after the disorder occurred Colonel Martin said—

He apparently blamed the Mzwangedwa section for the faction fights. He surely overlooked the finding of the two judges that they were not to blame—that the persons who provoked the fight were of the Manzolwandhle faction. I understand that the correctness of the statement I have quoted has been questioned by Colonel Martin, but the News Editor of the “Natal Witness” who was himself responsible for the report, furnishes a convincing vindication of its correctness which has been substantiated by European witnesses who were present. The News Editor, Mr. Harrison quotes from notes taken down at the time to prove the Ipsissima Verba of what Colonel Martin said. He is prepared to swear to the correctness of these notes and adds that at the end of the meeting Colonel Martin asked him not to publish a statement in regard to the use of troops. Mr. Harrison declined, and gave his reasons. Colonel Martin then agreed to the publication of the words appearing in the “Natal Witness.” On the 14th September, 1944 Colonel Martin telephoned to the “Natal Witness” and complained about the statements contained in the leading article. On that occasion he himself wrote out a corrected report which he wished to have inserted in the newspaper. This report, printed in the “Natal Witness,” re-affirms that Colonel B. W. Martin had issued a warning that he would call in the troops to destroy the ring-leaders. No denial of the correctness of the original report was made by Colonel Martin to the “Natal Witness.” Now we come to the matter mentioned in Paragraph C of my notice of motion, the treatment of the main body of the tribe subsequent to the appointment of the new chief. Immediately after the appointment there were renewed brutal attacks upon the members of the Ximba section. To such an extent did this happen that I wrote myself to the Secretary for Native Affairs pointing out in the case of Madoda that although reports had been made to the police, although this man had gone to hospital for treatment, with his right arm broken and permanently disabled, no prosecution had taken place; not even a statement had been taken by the police. On that occasion I wrote to the Secretary for Native Affairs making a definite complaint that this man was knocked out, that he was brutally assaulted by four men in the presence of Vumubuti one of Manzolwandhle’s headmen and left with a broken arm and head wounds and scarcely able to move. He was at first unable to go to the court. He had to make his wav to Grey’s hospital in Maritzburg. I explained all that and demanded to know why no steps had been taken to institute a prosecution. In return I received a letter from the Secretary for Native Affairs in which he dealt with the matter at some length. His reply was to quote a number of statements injurious to the cause of Madoda which had evidently been made to the Native Commissioner by the opposing side, and to wind up with the statement: “However in view of the allegations made against Vumubuti (the headman) I have asked the Chief Native Commissioner to pass Madoda’s statement to the Police for investigation without the usual procedure of insisting upon matters of tribal import being brought through the officials of the tribe.” In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary for Native Affairs intimated that it had been laid down—by whom I do not know—that the police were to take no complaints in a matter of tribal import which had not come through the headman of the Manzolwandhle faction. In this case the headman was said to have been present in the hut when Madoda had his arm broken. I at once went to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for Natal. He repudiated having issued any such instruction. He said that his station commanders had to be guided by police regulations, and that when a matter was reported a statement, “First Information of Crime”, had to be taken and then a record made in the Occurrence Book. He said those were his rules and he would not recognise anything else. I appreciated that, because it was evident to me that an effort was being made evidently with the knowledge of the Secretary for Native Affairs to prevent these people from obtaining redress. His assailants were prosecuted after three months’ delay, and one was fined £2. The position is this: This man Madoda has a disabled arm to this day. He is now suing the people who maimed him and at the time at which I left Natal he was having a good deal of difficulty. He was suing them civilly and would have to call Dr. Albertyn from Pietermaritzburg to testify as to his injuries. We come now to the attitude of the Magistrate himself in regard to this question. Even in civil law proceedings he was not content to let the law take its course, but when one of Mzwangedwa’s men was brought before him as defendant—I have here the record in which it is entered—he took an extraordinary course. The man came before him. He was the defendant. He was not responsible for any defect or error in the summons. The plaintiff was responsible for that. But the magistrate blamed him for his contemptuous attitude. Where the contemptuous attitude came in I do not know. He asked the defendant why the case was brought in the Native Commissioner’s Court instead of the Native Chief’s, and the defendant replied that he assumed that it was because he was not on good terms with the recently appointed chief. The magistrate put on record “This man is warned of contempt, and ordered to arrange at once for the hearing of this suit in Chief’s Court. Defendant to pay wasted costs.” The man was now warned of contempt though the bringing of the case in the wrong court was the plaintiff’s responsibility.

That is the foundation of all actions.

What were the consequences? He appeared before the chief. The proceedings began by his receiving a fine of £5 without any evidence being led. He then appealed to the same magistrate who had warned him of contempt, and only because he was represented by an able attorney did he get the fine quashed, though he had to pay the wasted costs.

What has all this got to do with the appointment of a chief?

It indicates the extent to which the Department of Native Affairs has gone in persecuting these natives and in forcing them to have recourse to expensive appeals in order to protect their civil rights. Now, we come to the attitude of the Department of Native Affairs in regard to native law generally. I regret to say that their attitude in regard to native affairs generally is one which must be very carefully examined in future. The code of native law in Natal was a Statute passed in 1891. It was originally issued both in Zulu and in English. I myself had the task of writing it out in Zulu, in obedience to the directions of the translator. The code became widely known throughout the country and when the Native Administration Act of 1927 was introduced a significant feature was embodied in Section 24 of that law to the effect that the code of native law in Natal, No. 19 of 1891, was to remain of full force and effect, subject to the right of amending that law by Proclamation. Now, Sir, what happened? Within a very few years the whole of that law was swept out of existence and a new code was introduced by Proclamation. More autocratic powers were taken for the supreme chief. Where formerly he could only depose a chief in certain circumstances he was now given an unrestricted right to depose. Where before he could under a specific section, appoint native chiefs he could now appoint any person as a chief. Anyone can examine the new code and he will then find that that is so. The officials of this country act more tyrannically as the years pass by and we have a right to resent it, and of course the natives resent it infinitely more. They are now gradually being brought to a stage where their rights are minimised and their difficulties increased and a state is setting in, in connection with native administration which most of us very much regret. I may put that down to the employment, at the very head of the department, of men who have had no previous training in native administration. I am glad to find that the foreshadowed appointment of Mr. Mears as Secretary for Native Affairs is not in this category. Mr. Mears is one who has served long years of training in native administration, and his assistant is in a similar position. They are both well trained and able men. But they enter upon a state of affairs in which there is great room for improvement, and the departmental attitude towards the natives is that the Government, by Proclamation, can do what they like in governing the natives. You have only to read the reflections on the danger of this course of no less an authority than the late Lord de Villiers, who condemned this idea of government by Proclamation, showing its weakness in the case of Paramount Chief Sigcau vs. The Queen (1895). In addition to that there is a tendency on the part of the Native Affairs Department to exclude all persons almost from entering into the native area. Even where devastating death walked amongst these natives and they were dying wholesale of smallpox in Natal, the visit of a reporter, made at his own cost, and in the public interest was resented and it was pointed out that he had no permit from the Native Affairs.Department to enter the native area. It is monstrous that in cases of that kind the true state of affairs should not be publicised—natives dying by the dozen and vaccination not being carried out as it should have been. It has been said that I am causing natives to ask that they should obtain redress in respect of decisions already made. That is an old and ineffectual reply. It was made under almost similar circumstances when the Ximba tribe first questioned the appointment of Manzolwandhle. This is what Lord De Villiers said about the bogey of non-interference in native matters—

Well Sir, almost the whole of the government of the natives today is done by means of Proclamations and most of these Proclamations are introduced, one might say, by stealth. They are introduced without notice, and if not objected to within a month, they become final. I consider this one of the worst features of native administration as now practised, and it will bring its own Nemesis in time. Now if the will of the Chief Native Commissioner and the Secretary for Native Affairs had prevailed the treatment of the Mzwangedwa section would have continued on a course which in the independent opinion of people better able to judge has been the cause of all the trouble. The continuance of acts of provocation against the Mzwangedwa section with means of redress denied to them “in matters of tribal import” because of the insistence that the Police must be approached through the officials of the tribe, was certainly likely to cause further outbreaks I have not been able to find out where the Secretary for Native Affairs derived authority to say that in matters of tribal import a complaint of brutal assault could only come to the Police if the usual procedure was insisted upon of bringing the case through the officials of the tribe. Is that sufficient for the holding up of justice to a man who is maimed for life and who cannot now continue the work he formerly performed at £4 a month at the Durban Waterworks? That, Sir, is nothing to the Secretary for Native Affairs. It is a condescension on his part even to write such a letter. He wrote to me, a man who has grown old in the service of Native Affairs in various places in the Transvaal and in Natal, saying that I had no right to interfere with an indefensible action of the Native Commissioner at Camperdown. After the appointment of the new chief, it was not sufficient for the Native Commissioner to administer the law, but, at the instance of one of Manzolwandhle’s men, he went down to the native area to upset a decision affecting garden lands made some years before by one of his predecessors. I doubt whether he had any right to do that but that is what he did. I remonstrated to the Secretary for Native Affairs that this was bound to lead to the sort of clash which General Smuts was concerned should not occur. I had had a letter from General Smuts acknowledging my representations to him and saying that he understood my point of view but that he hoped I would assist in preventing any clash. The Native Commissioner, apparently with the concurrence of the Secretary for Native Affairs, was probing into a difficult and inflammatory question. The Mzwangedwa natives affected were suffering under a sense of injustice.

Let us get this clear. Do you suggest that he was deliberately causing a clash?

No. I confine myself to the Secretary for Natives Affairs own statement in a letter that I had no right to interfere or even write about the matter. In the matter of the complaints of assaulted natives the Deputy Commissioner of Police repudiated any change in Police procedure, and in future I hope the Secretary for Native Affairs will amend his instructions and inform his District Officers that these instructions no longer exist and that where a native has complained he is entitled to lodge his complaint, and no tribal official has any standing in such a matter. I maintain that this position calls for redress. There is no doubt in my mind that the complaints of the Ximba tribe demand impartial investigation. It is of course, a difficult matter for this House to deal with, but I maintain that it calls for the close investigation that I ask for.

I second the motion. I submit that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has made out a case which definitely calls for an answer.

I think it is well that I should intervene as early as possible in this debate because I think that hon. members should have the position as it really exists put clearly before them so that they can make up their minds whether or not the Government is right if it rejects the motion proposed by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). Sir, he has given us a long recitation of the genealogical tree of this Ximba tribe but in order to get the picture clearer, I feel that I ought to run through certain portions of this family tree, as the hon. member has to a certain extent confused the issue with rather too much detail, and I doubt whether many members in the House really appreciate the full consequences or know the whole genealogical tree of this tribe. If I may say so, too, I suggest that he has been rather misleading in quite a lot of the deductions he drew from the statements he made here, and therefore it is necessary for me, as briefly as possible, to give the facts. A very great deal of the latter portion of his speech—I must say this before I go any further—is quite irrelevant to the motion before the House, and the questions he elaborated here at such length have really nothing to do with the case. Most of the trouble is about a dispute over a garden, which has nothing to do with the chieftainship of the tribe at all. But I do not propose to go into all this. In trying to prove his case he has done all he could to discredit my Department and its officials, and in some cases he has had—I suppose I must not put it too strongly—the temerity to ascribe the basest motives to some of the most senior officials in my Department. He has attacked them, and in my opinion, it was an unwarranted attack on the finest body of men in the Civil Service.

Of course they are.

From the hon. member’s remarks I did not think he thought that. To destroy the confidence of the public in its Civil Service is unsound, and I will pass over that portion of his speech with the contempt it deserves. But before I go further I would like to answer one point straight away. He has referred to the code. The code does not provide for the appointment and dismissal of chiefs. That is provided for by Section 2 of the Native Administration Act. The Amending code was promulgated in 1932, two years before. [Interruption], Only on two or three occasions did I interrupt the hon. member, just for the sake of obtaining information and to make sure that I got the information I wanted. I trust that he will not continually interrupt me and that he will give me an opportunity of stating the case of the Government clearly. The hon. member for Pinetown has raised so many difficulties about this chieftainship, that I recently caused careful search to be made in the Archives at Pietermaritzburg. This work has been carried out with great care by the Chief Native Commissioner, Colonel Martin, and his staff, and shortly the history of the Ximba people is as follows:—Maboyi Mlaba, the Ximba Patriarch, was never a Chief, but was a Captain in charge of a company of young warriors in the Embo tribe. Among his descendants he had three sons, 1. Mahlanya, a son by his first wife, who was his undisputed general heir and as such his successor as leader of the clan. 2. Mdepa, a second son of the second wife his elder brother having died in infancy. 3. Mqundane, a son by the third wife. In 1861 Sir Theophilus Shepstone appointed Mahlanya as “Chief of the whole Ximba tribe living in the Umgeni Division”, which then included Pietermaritzburg, Camperdown and possibly other districts. Then in 1862, with a view to providing a buffer between two contending tribes, Shepstone appointed Mqundane as Chief of a portion of the Ximbas, in a piece of territory in the “Thorn Country” in what is now Camperdown district. These people are still there and they eventually came under the rule of Mdepa, whose great-grandson, Mzangedwa, is the claimant in the present dispute. What seems to have happened is that in order to restore peace in the Thorn Country, Shepstone detached a section of the tribe under Mahlanya and placed them under Mqundane. This was the first division of the tribe. The following year Mqundane was permitted to settle with a portion of his tribe in what is now known as the Creighton Area in the district of Ixopo. But he retained control over his followers in the Thom Country, and left his half-brother, Mdepa. as his Induna in charge there. We find, however, according to the archives, that in or about 1871 Mdepa was elevated to the rank of Chief of a part of the tribe, and he thereafter exercised jurisdiction over a portion of the people in the Thorn Country. Thus, by 1871 the Ximbas had been split into three sections under the three sons of Maboyi Mlaba, in the present districts of Pietermaritzburg, Camperdown Bulwer and Ixopo. A year later, in 1872, Langalibalele (a name which means “the sun is hot”), Chief of a tribe of Basutos called the Hlubis, whose headquarters were in a location at the foothills of the Drakensberg, in the Estcourt district, rebelled against the Government of Natal. Chief Mahlanya and some of his followers served on the side of the Government in a Native contingent commanded by Captain Wheelwright. Langalibalele was defeated and he and his followers fled to Basutoland and elsewhere, leaving their location empty. The Government then decided to allocate this abandoned territory to “sundry loyal chiefs and headmen with their followers”, and on 5th June 1874, a portion of this location was pointed out and formally assigned to “the petty Chief Mahlanya and his Ximba followers”. Mahlanya himself settled in his new location, but never voluntarily abandoned control of the followers left behind in the Pietermaritzburg-Camperdown districts. Mahlanya died in 1890 and was succeeded by his eldest son Filepu. Filepu died in 1900, leaving a minor heir Bhekamatshe. In 1913, however, for administrative reasons, the Government decided to split the Mahlanya section into two, placing Bhekamatshe in charge of the Ximbas in the Estcourt district, and his brother Nkawane as Chief of the people whom Mahlanya had left behind in the Pietermaritzburg-Camperdown districts when he trekked to Estcourt in 1874. Nkawane was succeeded by his son Mciteki of whom further mention will be made later. About the same time, the Mqundane section, who are not concerned with this dispute, was also split into two, and we find that in 1930, which is the date material to this dispute, the position was as follows :—

1. A. The main body of the Mahlanya section under Chief Bhekamatshe in the Estcourt district;
2. B. The remnants of the Mahlanya section in the Camperdown and Pietermaritzburg districts under Chief Mciteki;
3. C. The Mdepa section under acting Chief Lwiyi, regent for the present claimant Mwangedwa, a son of the late Chief Tutuma and a great-grandson of Mdepa, settled in the Camperdown and Pietermaritzburg districts;
4. D. The main body of the Mqundane section in the Mahlabatini district under Nyawana, son of Mqundane.
5. E. The remnants of the Mqundane section in the Ixopo and Bulwer districts under Chief Makawukana, grandson of Mqundane.

It has been the policy of the Department for many years wherever possible to eliminate small tribal units and to consolidate them. Hon. members will appreciate that this policy is sound in principle and wise from an administrative point of view. In pursuance of this policy, in 1942 Sections D and E were merged together under Mqundane’s direct heir, Makawukana, and there has been no trouble as a result of this readjustment. In 1929 Chief Tutuma of Section C died, and as already indicated he left as a minor heir the claimant Mzwangedwa. When this happened, the Chief Native Commissioner of Natal put forward to the then Minister of Native Affairs, the following suggestions—

1. (i) That Chief Bhekamatshe should surrender his Chieftainship over the A Section, and that the Ximbas belonging to this group should be merged with the Hlubis under Chief Tatazela; and
2. (ii) That Sections B and C should be amalgamated and Bhekamatshe be appointed Chief of the amalgamated tribe.

The justification for this was that Bhekamatshe was the senior living member of the House of Maboyi Mlaba, the original head of the clan. Chief Bhekamatshe agreed to this, and as far as Section B was concerned, these people also agreed and their Chief, Mciteki, voluntarily relinquished his Chieftainship. It was under these circumstances that the Governor-General appointed Bhekamatshe as Chief of the amalgamated Sections B and C in 1930 by Order in Council. A man who played an important part in this and in subsequent events was a Head Induna of Section C, namely Charlie Mlaba. Charlie Mlaba was the son of Mdepa, Chief of Section C until his death in 1913. After Mdepa’s death, Charlie was appointed as Regent for Tutuma, Mdepa’s grandson and minor heir and in that capacity acted as Chief until Tutuma became of age in 1917. But in 1929, when Tutuma died, Tutuma’s brother was chosen by the Section C as Regent for Tutuma’s minor heir Mzwangedwa. Here you will see emerging a psychological phenomenon which covers the whole of this dispute. In other words, Charlie having been the Regent and the big man, was now passed over and somebody else was appointed Regent. This irritated him. We know how small things can turn a protagonist of a cause into its opponent. I think this is one thing reflected in history but which can be said to repeat itself in all walks of life. Certain writers maintain that because some ironic and caustic observations made by Frederick the Great regarding certain court ladies were repeated by Voltaire, the train was set for his losing the support of Russia. His rémarks about Katherine the Great are said to have led to that. There is no doubt that Maria Theresa—but I cannot proceed along those lines ….

Don’t go back to the subject; the digression is much more interesting.

There is no doubt that Maria Theresa ….

I think that the hon. Minister might return to the motion before the House.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but this really goes back to the whole point of Charlie Mlaba. There is no doubt that this action on the part of Section C rankled in Charlie Mlaba’s mind and that he became disaffected. Accordingly, when the introduction of Bhekamatshe and the amalgamation of Sections B and C were decided upon, Charlie Mlaba acquiesced in the proposals. This is borne out by the fact that while Bhekamatshe was establishing his tribal headquarters he lived for three years at Charlie Mlaba’s kraal, and he was retained in the position of Head Induna, a position he holds to this day. The records show that some of Mdepa’s people (Section C) objected to the amalgamation. But the fact remains there was no formal opposition to Bhekamatshe’s installation. Thereafter, however, there were rumours that Bhekamatshe would relinquish the Chieftainship of Section C when Tutuma’s heir Mzwangedwa became of age. In consequence of these rumours, the Chief Native Commissioner instructed Mr. R. P. Campbell, Native Commissioner of Camperdown, to call the tribe together and to tell them that the Chieftainship of Section B had been extinguished. Mr. Campbell held a meeing on 13th November, 1935, and informed the people that Bhakamatshe had been appointed as Chief of the tribe in the Pietermaritzburg and Camperdown districts and not as Regent for Mzwangedwa. Mr. Campbell, who is a fluent Zulu linguist, recorded what happened at that meeting and his report is in Annexure A, which I shall read—

Has it been stated that Bhekamatshe was only acting as Chief and if so may we be told the name of the person who has made this statement and the source from which you, Sir, obtained your information.

You were present in my office when Chief Bhekamatshe charged your son, Mpiyeza, with making this statement at an enquiry in connection with a kraal-site for Mbidli Mlaba.

That is correct.

I emphatically deny that such a statement was ever made by my son Mpiyeza. We unanimously accepted Bhekamatshe as our Chief well knowing that in doing so we were depriving Mzwangedwa, the son of the late Tutuma, of any opportunity of assuming the Chieftainship in the future. Since Bhekamatshe assumed the Chieftainship there has been the greatest harmony in the tribe. It is only now that this person (indicating Mbidli Mlaba) has arrived in our midst that trouble has arisen. The site selected for his kraal is in grazing ground which has been used as such for generations and there is bound to be trouble if he is allowed to establish his kraal there. When the question of a kraal site for him first arose the Chief said he intended placing him in the Sikelegehle area, but he now intends putting him near me and in my grazing ground.

It is true that I said I would put Mbidli in the Sikelegehle area but he is a stranger to the majority of us and I feel that it is better to have him near me, hence my choosing the site which is now objected to.

informed the meeting that he first wanted to deal with the question of Bhekamatshe’s appointment as Chief and he would later deal with the matter of Mbidli.

We have no quarrel with our Chief. We accepted him as the head of the Mlaba people and there has never been any question of Mzwangedwa assuming the Chieftainship when he attains majority. Asked by the Native Commissioner if the last speaker had correctly stated their views those present unanimously replied in the affirmative. Turning to the matter of Mbidli Mlaba the Native Commissioner explained that the Government had removed him from the Estcourt district and being one of the Mlaba people it was considered desirable that he should be sent to the Camperdown district. It was now necessary to find him a suitable building site and the Government expected the Ximba people to assist in this direction.

I have already, with the assistance of my “ibandhla”, selected a suitable site for Mbidli which I deny is in the grazing grounds. It is in bush covered country which will have to be cleared and in any case Mbidli will not have his gardens there but some distance away.

We members of the “ibandhla” had no idea that Mbidli was coming down until his actual arrival. We should have been told beforehand in order to make the necessary arrangements.

The site selected for Mbidli is in our grazing grounds. Our goats graze all through the bush, which is only scrub, during the winter.

Bhewula Tshezi states that the “ibandhla” should have been advised of Mbidli’s impending arrival. With that I entirely agree but it does not help matters to refer to this omission now. What we have got to do is to take steps to repair the matter and find a suitable site for Mbidli with as little delay as possible. If it is a fact that the site selected is in grazing grounds it must be abandoned and a fresh site selected. To this end I suggest that the headmen of the tribe, together with my constable, will proceed at an early date to select a site which will not give rise to any further trouble.

I entirely agree with your suggestion sir, but before this meeting breaks up I desire to state that I have no quarrel with my uncle Charlie Mlaba. He was the person who received me on my arrival to assume the Chieftainship and it was at my request that he was appointed as my head Induna. I hope that it will be possible to settle the matter of a kraal site for Mbidli without causing any more trouble. The meeting then closed.

For six or seven years after Bhekamatshe’s appointment, the administration of the amalgamated sections ran smoothly. But Bhekamatshe allotted a piece of land to a man named Mbidhli (Mbidli) who had been his principal Induna in the old days at Estcourt. This was resented by Charlie Mlaba and caused friction. In January, 1942, Bhekamatshe became ill. With the unanimous approval of the people he nominated his son and heir Manzolwandhle (Manzolwandle) to act as Chief. But he did not consult Charlie Miaba, who felt displeased at being overlooked. Tension followed and continued until Bhekamatshe’s death in June, 1942. After Bhekamatshe’s death, Charlie Mlaba started an agitation to restore the Chieftainship of Section C (Mdepa Chieftainship), and the appointment of the last Tutuma’s son, Mzwangedwa, as Chief. As a result, on 27th August, 1942, the Native Commissioner of Camperdown (Mr. Burton) held a meeting of the tribe. He reported that there was dissension but that the large majority favoured the retention of the existing position and the appointment of Bhekamatshe’s heir, Manzolwandle (Manzolwandhle) as Chief of the amalgamated Sections B and C while only a small section supported Mzwangedwa. The Department consulted Mr. R. P. Campbell, for many years Native Commissioner of Camperdown and an experienced Natal official. Mr. Campbell advised in favour of Manzolwandhle (that is, that the existing position be maintained). In the result, the Governor-General appointed Manzolwandhle as Chief of the amalgamated sections, and Colonel Martin, the Chief Native Commissioner of Natal, performed the installation ceremony on 25th November, 1942. At this ceremony a section supported by Charlie Mlaba expressed disappointment at the Government’s decision, but Mciteki, former Chief of Section B, who had surrendered his Chieftainship in favour of the amalgamation, expressed surprise at the attitude of these people. Since then, the tribe has been divided into two rival factions and there have been clashes which have called for police intervention. In November, 1943, the hon. member for Pinetown, upon whose farm adherents of the recalcitrant section reside, brought a deputation led by Charlie Mlaba to see me at Durban. In consequence, the Chief Native Commissioner appointed three Native Commissioners to enquiry into the cause of friction in terms of Section 24 of the Natal Code. These Native Commissioners recommended the reinstatement of the Chieftainship of Section C (the Mdepa Chieftainship). But in their report they had overlooked certain important factors. These factors were brought to their notice by the Chief Native Commissioner and they then submitted an amended report and recommended that Mzwangedwa’s claim should be rejected. In these circumstances. I caused the facts to be examined afresh by the Secretary for Native Affairs, Colonel Martin, Chief Native Commissioner for Natal, Major Rodseth, Chief Native Commissioner for the Northern Areas, and the Department’s Ethnologist. Both Colonel Martin and Major Rodseth come from Natal. They are both fluent Zulu linguists and have had many years of experience in Zulu administration. After careful consideration of all the facts, the Government, with the approval of the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that the existing position should not be disturbed and that the appointment of Manzolwandhle as Chief of the two Sections B and C made by the Governor-General in 1942, should stand. There are various factors that must be borne in mind in dealing with this matter. During the rule of Chief Bhekamatshe, the two Sections B and C had become residentially mixed and separation at this stage presents insuperable administrative difficulties. Moreover, to give effect to the representations made by the hon. member for Pinetown would mean that we would do an injustice to Manzolwandhle inasmuch as we could not restore to him the tribe of his father Bhekamatshe which was merged with Tatazela’s tribe at Estcourt From time to time the hon. member for Pinetown has put forward various contentions on behalf of the Mzwangedwa sections, but I regret to say that many of his statements are not borne out by the records in the Archives. It would take too long to deal categorically with all the points he has raised, but I quote the following:

1. (1) He has given us the impression that Manzolwandhle’s ancestor Mahlanya, the senior of Maboyi’s three sons, was the least important of the three, and that he was originally appointed as chief of a small Native area near Swartkop, Pietermaritzburg.

As I have already shown, Mahlanya was Maboyi’s general heir and Maboyi’s successor as leader of the clan; and Mahlanya’s appointment was as “Chief of the whole Ximba tribe living in the Umgeni Division”—now Pietermaritzburg and Camperdown districts.

1. (2) He has contended that Mdepa’s people were never consulted as to the amalgamation of the two sections B and C and that at no stage were they notified by the department of the disappearance of their separate chieftainship or the reasons therefor.

On 17th February 1930, the Native Commissioner of Camperdown discussed the department’s proposals with the acting Chief Lwiyi of the Mdepa section (Section C) and the principal headman of the tribe, including Charlie Mlaba; and at that stage they expressed disapproval. On the other hand, there was no objection by the B section under Mciteki who, speaking on behalf of his tribe, summed up the position in these words:—

Thereafter on 5th September, 1930, the Government’s decision to amalgamate the two sections was conveyed to the Mdepa section (Section C) by the Native Commissioner of Camperdown. And it is clear from subsequent events that these people were fully aware of the position and acquiesced in the change, and all doubt on this point was removed at the Native Commissioner’s meeting of 13th November, 1935 (Annexure A).

(3) He contends that the Executive Council minute dated 14th August, 1930, did not abolish the Mdepa Chieftainship (Section C). But the amalgamation of the two Sections B and C and the appointment of Bhekamatshe as Chief over the two had that effect.

(4) He says that “a person was appointed who was entirely unknown to the members of the tribe”. This is not correct. As I have already shown, Bhekamatshe was the senior living descendant of Maboyi, the father of the clan, and it is idle to contend that he was an unknown stranger.

(5) He maintains that Chief Manzolwandhle is opposed by the majority of the people. My Department does not accept this estimate. My officers are of the opinion that approximately only one-third belong to the opposition.

(6) He has referred to the judgment of the Judge-President in a case in which a number of Mzwangedwa’s followers (Section C) were charged with violence arising out of this dispute and to certain evidence given by Colonel Martin on that occasion. Upon enquiry, I find that neither the learned Judge nor Colonel Martin had before them the record of the meeting on 13th November, 1935 (Annexure A), and Colonel Martin states that had he been aware of this record and the other papers which he has since studied, he would have expressed a different opinion. The same applies to Colonel Martin’s report to the Secretary for Native Affairs in 1943 that in his opinion the Department had erred in the readjustments made in 1930.

I have consulted the Native Affairs Commission and they recommend that Manzolwandhle’s appointment should stand. I regret I cannot accept the motion.

If you refer to the family tree which was shown to the House you will find that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and the Minister agree as to the original sons of Maboyi. The only difference is that the hon. member for Pinetown has marked them 1, 2 and 3, and the hon. Minister has marked them in the reverse order, A, B and C. The hon. member for Pinetown marks Mqundane as No. 1 while the hon. member marks him as C. They have just been reversed. The hon. member for Pinetown deals with these three heirs but he does not give the family tree. The hon. Minister gives the family tree, and shows us which is the heir according to native custom, and that is the man who has now been appointed. It is all very well to say that we must stick to native custom and then to twist the family tree round. We should stick to that family tree, because in native custom the heir comes down in the direct line. The heirs must come down in the direct line from the eldest son of the first wife, and certainly not from the youngest son of the second wife. Therefore, I come to Clause A and I am afraid that I cannot agree with that section which says—

The appointment is definitely not contrary to native law, and therefore Section (a) of the motion must fall away. Let me turn for a minute to Clause (b)—

In addressing the House the hon. member for Pinetown said that these men were not guilty at all and were not the aggressors.

I never made any such statement.

You said that the verdict given by Mr. Justice Brokensha was ….

I read his verdict. Do not put words into my mouth.

I am sorry but I started reading at the wrong place. The hon. member for Pinetown said that the Judge’s reason for not convicting was that he was unable to find as proved that the Crown had proved without reasonable doubt that any of the accused had been a member of the Impi. But if you go back a little further and read what came before that—and that was not read to us—you will find that Mr. Justice Brokensha stated that the party composed of natives belonging to the same tribe as the accused had attacked this other party, and this Impi had fired shots at them. Why does not the hon. member for Pinetown include that portion of the judgment?

I read the verdict.

I admit the verdict was read, but the verdict does not quite agree with the correct impression that guided Mr. Justice Brokensha’s mind, because the verdict must be read in conjunction with that passage, to get the impression that most members of this House would get. The point is this. Mr. Justice Brokensha definitely states that there is no doubt whatsoever that people from this tribe fired the shots and there is no doubt that that tribe was guilty, but the only thing is that he said in the verdict that the Crown could not prove that these particular 70 people before him were the ones who were in that Impi. That is what his verdict is.

That they were guilty.

No, that members of the tribe were guilty, but that these particular men charged before him were not proved to have been there. I am very glad that the Courts do no punish people for something that a tribe does. I have pleaded before for State medical services and for justice and I am glad that natives are not punished because of some crime committed by the whole tribe. I am sorry to hear from the hon. member for Pinetown that these 70 men had to pay £700 in legal fees. I wish I had known of it before, when I was pleading for a State legal service. I think it is a terrible charge for these people, to have to pay all that money. But, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget the fact that the Impi, the clan, as such, were the culprits. That is according to the evidence and the verdict. Therefore I feel that Section (b) falls away, too. We feel that it leaves very little of the original motion intact and seeing that we have to take the motion as a whole, or not at all, I do not feel that it is necessary at all, at this stage, to discuss Sections (c) and (d).

I think most members of this House regret very much the attack made by the member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) on the native administration of this country. I am rather surprised that he as an old and experienced man, who has had very much experience of native affairs in this country does not know that anything he says in this House against our administration will not reflect only against the Native Affairs Department but against the whole of the Government of this country. When we heard the explanation of this matter which the Minister has given today, and when we realise how carefully he and his Department have gone into it, it seems to me that the member has spoken, I will not say irresponsibily, but I should like to use even stronger language than that if I can. In his accusation against the Chief Commissioner of Natal he even referred to the fact that when these natives became obstreperous, when they were told that this chief had been appointed, and they adopted a threatening attitude, and he criticised the Native Commissioner for saying that if these people did not behave themselves, the Government would have to use force. How often will such things happen in the country if we have this unfortunate type of matter brought before the House? I cannot condemn in too strong terms the actions of the hon. member in this connection. I want to ask the hon. member one question. Unquestionably this tribe was split up into five sections. If the natives of these five sections had been called together and asked to nominate their chief, who would they have nominated? Knowing the natives as I do, they would have come together and would undoubtedly have nominated the eldest direct descendant of the old Chief Maboyi, and that is the man whom the Minister nominated, and who has been accepted by all sections of the tribe for a long time. It is only now when this youth has attained majority that trouble is stirred up. My hon. friend said that this chief was brought for 150 miles. Let me tell the House that the Pingos of the Transkei, who were driven away by Chaka from Zululand 100 years ago have been struggling for many years now to get a chief, but they all say that their chief is still up in Natal, and they cannot choose one themselves. That is the attitude of the native. In this particular instance I am convinced that had these natives been left to select a chief there is no question but that they would have selected Manzolwandhle the one whom the Minister appointed. They would have said that the eldest son of the old chief would be their chief, and that is exactly what happened when they had that meeting. I wonder whether the hon. member knew of that meeting, and had he been in possession of the documents the Minister searched for and found, whether he would have brought up this matter here. I am sure that he would not have done so. He has complained about the powers which the Native Affairs Department is taking into its hands there. I wonder whether he will remember that in 1927, when the Native Administration Act came before this House, we from the Transkei pleaded that the system in the Transkei should be maintained, and that we should not be made to adopt the system of the Supreme Chief applying in Natal. In the Cape a man can go to the Supreme Court to have such a matter decided. In Pondoland we had the same thing, where two young men disputed the question of chieftainship. One was appointed by the Government and the other, being dissatisfied, went to the Supreme Court and later took the matter to the Appellate Division. When this matter came before the House in 1927, I think the hon. member opposed me. He now comes forward and suggests that there should be a system somewhat similar to the Transkei system. I just cannot understand his attitude. I understood him to criticise very sincerely the actions of the Native Affairs Department in connection with this matter. He himself mentioned Major Rodseth as one of the experienced members of the Native Affairs Department in Natal. He is one of the men who sat on this committee. He went carefully into the whole matter together with Colonel Martin. The hon. member may say that Colonel Martin having already given a decision was prejudiced, but Major Rodseth was not. He came to the conclusion that Manzolwandhle was the correct head of the clan and he advised the hon. Minister accordingly, and how the hon. member can attack the Secretary for Native Affairs and impute personal motives to him and say that he has not got the experience which a head of a Department should have, passes my understanding. The Secretary for Native Affairs knows the police procedure probably better than anyone else and to suggest that he would interfere with the police to prevent the prosecution when a native has had his arm broken, passes my comprehension. No, I say that it is to be regretted that this matter has been brought before the House. Fortunately it is the first time we have had a matter of this nature brought before the House. But if in future any native who has some little tribal trouble about chieftainship is to be allowed to bring a petition of this kind before the House, I do not know where it will end. We know that as soon as a native obtains his majority there is always trouble between his guardian and the rest of the family, and this matter is exactly similar. The authorities have declared that Manzolwandhle is the heir and Chief of the tribe and they must stand by that. The hon. member says that the supporters of Mzwangedwa are in the majority. Are we then to believe that the minority of the Ximbas who had no complaint in that their Chief had been appointed, would launch an attack against the majority. I do think the hon. member should be more careful in interfering in administrative matters. We in the Transkei do not interfere in matters of administration. We have that faith in the administration of this country, and although they have made many attempts to try to draw me into these matters, I have refused. The administration knows more about these matters and it is dangerous to bring a politician in. I wonder if the hon. member remembers the incident that happened in this House 20 years ago when I first came into the House. The late General Hertzog was bringing in his Native Bill. As you know, Sir, he had a policy of segregation. I had letters from natives in Natal, from 20 old chiefs, asking me to arrange an interview with the late General Hertzog. They said they wanted to place their case before him. I did not know that it was courteous to go to members who represented Natal. I approached the late General Hertzog and he agreed to see them, and 20 old warriors came down. The late General Hertzog received them in his office. He stayed there for two or three hours and discussed all their difficulties with them. He promised to alleviate their difficulties. Afterwards I was told that the members representing Natal had objected to my action and complained to General Hertzog. The natives had written to them and they had refused to assist those natives. That is clearly the line that the hon. member is taking up. He says that as far as the Native Affairs Department is concerned, they are antagonistic towards the native and not playing the game towards them. I think the hon. member is taking this thing to heart too much, and I am very sorry that he has caused all this trouble, and I sincerely hope that when he gets back to Natal, he will tell these natives, although I believe they are not actually on his farm, that the House has given consideration to this matter and that the Government is determined to stand by that decision and that they should play the game loyally towards the Government and support Manzolwandhle.

Perhaps you will allow me an opportunity of replying to the somewhat fierce attacks which have been made upon me by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). I do not mind any well founded attack being made on me so long as the facts are correct. But to say that I made groundless accusations against the Native Affairs Department is without foundation. I have given particulars of my objections to their acts. I have also indicated the danger of the Native Affairs Department being allowed to proceed on the principle of government by proclamation with regard to important native matters such as the repeal of the code of Native Law in Natal. The very substance of the Natal code of native law may be altered almost overnight. I sounded a warning against that and I have read to this House the opinion of the late Chief Justice, the late Lord De Villiers, on the danger of government by proclamation in relation to native administration. The hon. member has suggested that I had recommended the Transkei system for Natal but is unable to quote any such statement. There is one thing upon which the Minister bases his whole case—and in this connection I want to correct the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) but I am not going to correct him on my own opinion. For many years I have had the privilege of being called to give evidence as an expert on native law. The hon. member has forced me to mention a matter I should rather have withheld. Actually as far back as the years I spent in the Transvaal Native Affairs Department, 40 years ago, I was called as an expert on native law in the Supreme Court. I was referred to in these terms by Justice Sir William Solomon—

I have in addition had the honour of presiding over a case in native law, affecting the rights and powers of native chiefs in which the present Acting Governor-General, who was then practising at the Bar, was engaged on one side, and the Rt. Hon. The Prime Minister on the other. In my court, the court of the Native Commissioner of Pretoria. I was called upon to lay down certain powers that were in dispute in regard to the jurisdiction of the native chiefs. The matter was taken to appeal and the Government of the country which was constituted the final Court under the Native Administration Law of 1885 upheld the judgment I had given. I only mention this because the hon. member has suggested that I am a light-hearted man who expresses ill-considered opinions. Actually I have always founded my judgment on the law, and in this respect I would correct the hon. member. He says that the law of primogeniture applies to the succession of the three chiefs. It does nothing of the kind.

But Maboyi was a commoner.

Yes, and when he died his estate passed to his first son, but that estate did not include the three chieftainships earned by the subsequent merit of his sons. Succession to the chieftainship can only devolve through native law which says that, in the case of the chief, primogeniture does not apply.

Exactly.

Why then does the hon. member say that in this case, if the Ximba people as a whole had been called upon to choose one chief they would have been guided by the law of primogeniture and chosen the first-born son of Maboyi? Sir Theophilus Shepstone in his evidence said primogeniture was recognised by the natives, except in the case of chiefs. He added that the first wife could never be the great wife (of a chief) and the first wife’s son could not inherit the chieftainship unless the male issue of all the houses had been exhausted.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 9th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I move—

It has not been customary for me to say much in moving the second reading of my Part Appropriation Bill, because anything that I might say now about Railway matters would merely anticipate by budget speech which I have to make next week. I feel, however, that I should take the very first opportunity that presents itself to make a short statement in regard to the developments in connection with civil aviation. It is a matter which has been engaging the attention of the Government very closely for the past 12 months, and I think the House is entitled to such information as I now have available. I propose to adhere rather closely to my notes, so that I may be strictly accurate in anything that is said, since most of the matters discussed have implications outside our own country. Since the House met last year, some progress has been made towards the clarification of the rather confused situation so far as civil aviation is concerned throughout the world. The Union Government has kept in the closest touch with development in all parts of the world and has given special attention to post-war civil air transport problems. South Africa was represented at a series of air conferences in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, and it has been engaged in placing its own house in order. In the circumstances I feel the time is opportune to make a statement on the general position to this House. In the past year three important Air Conferences were held—one on an international basis at Chicago and the two others on a Commonwealth basis at Montreal. South Africa was represented at all three Conferences. Our delegates were furnished with complete information as to our ideas and policy, but were not authorised to commit the Union to any specific proposals. Hon. members know that the Union observes the Paris Convention of 1919, which regulates international aerial navigation, and which was ratified by this House in 1923. While the Paris Convention was intended for universal application, it has in practice been confined mainly to the Eastern Hemisphere, its counterpart being the Havana Convention of 1928 for the Western Hemisphere, where, however, it has only limited application. The Paris Convention has undoubtedly proved of greatest value in the technical field, which was its more immediate purpose. It recognised the principle that every power has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory, and bound each contracting State in time of peace to accord freedom of innocent passage to aircraft of other contracting States. Related to this was the right, subject to certain conditions, of every aircraft of a contracting State to cross the air space of another contracting State without landing. From the point of view of scheduled international services, however, these rights were of little or no value due to a subsequent provision that the establishment of international airways and the creation and operation of regular international services, with or without landing, over the territory of another State was conditional on that State’s prior authority being signified. The net result of this was the bilateral bargaining with which up to the outbreak of war we were familiar and which had many undesirable features. Our early communication with London involved a railway journey across Italy. No one could cross certain countries without agreeing to exacting, impossible terms on which such countries could insist before granting the right to pass over their territories. Technical advancements in the aeronautical field has given rise to new concepts as to the conditions under which aircraft may navigate the skies. The desire to avoid friction and the difficulties of the kind indicated arising from a system of bilateral bargaining has also created a desire for greater privileges, properly defined and established by international law. These privileges are the freedoms of the air of which we hear so much today. They have been variously described, but later on I shall define them following more or less the terminology of the Chicago Conference. The policy of the Union Government in regard to the post-war set-up for civil aviation, and in accordance with which the South African delegates to the recent overseas Conferences were duly instructed, is:—

1. (1) To maintain the principle of national sovereignty of the air;
2. (2) to safeguard the air interests of South Africa in accordance with our defined policy and to co-operate with other countries to this end;
3. (3) to support plans aiming at international agreement on all necessary standards of safety, military security and the proper regulation of air travel.

In considering these questions we must bear in mind that in the air sense South Africa is a relatively small country. I emphasise this in order to show that for us it is important to secure the necessary safeguards against the uncontrolled competition or other and larger countries. We have neither the means nor the wish to indulge in cutthroat competition with any other country. In our view a simple International Convention, to which we would be a party and which could indicate routes, frequencies of services, rates and fares, and all the numerous other matters requiring elucidation, would suit our purpose much better than a “free for all” fight for any traffic that might be offering. At the Montreal and Chicago Conferences the plans which accorded with the policy of the Union Government and the particular circumstances applicable to the Union was the British plan, which briefly provided for an international convention which would—

1. (i) reaffirm the principle of national sovereignty of the air;
2. (ii) define the degree of freedom of the air to be enjoyed by ratifying States;
3. (iii) define the international air routes which should be subject to international regulation;
4. (iv) provide for the elimination of uneconomic competition by the determination of frequencies, the distribution of those frequencies between the countries concerned, and the fixing of rates of carriage in relation to standards of speed and accommodation, as well as the licensing of international operators:
5. (v) provide for abitration in matters of dispute;
6. (vi) secure the acceptance by the ratifying States of an obligation to provide, in their respective territories, the ground facilities needed for international services, or to allow such facilities to be provided by others;
7. (vii) prescribe safety regulations, such as rules of the air, airworthiness, licensing of personnel and aircraft, ground signals, meteorological procedure, etc.

For the administration of the Convention, it was proposed that an International Air Authority should be established and under it (i) an Operational Executive with subsidiary Regional Panels; and (ii) Sub-Commissions to deal with technical matters. This Plan in fact had emerged from the Commonwealth discussions at the London Conference of October, 1943, and, without any vital amendment, was restated at Montreal last year and subsequently at Chicago. At the outset let us recognise that whilst the Chicago Conference fell short of our hopes and expectations, it nevertheless achieved a measure of success in a number of important directions. The unanimity reached in the technical field will enable a degree of uniformity of practice to be achieved which is far in advance of anything provided under earlier Conventions. In the operational and economic fields the freedoms in resect of scheduled international services as discussed by the Conference are—

As hon. members are aware, it was in regard to the application of the Fifth Freedom that unanimity could not be attained at Chicago. This fact, however, has not detracted seriously from the progress made toward better general understanding and agreement between the interested countries. The Union Government are prepared to agree to the first two Freedoms without qualification and subject to adequate safeguards to subscribe to the remaining three.

I would now like to say a word or two about the proposed Southern Africa Air Conference, which will open in Cape Town on March 20. We had intended to convene this Conferenhe last October, but as we then recognised that any conclusions reached would have been subject to the overriding decisions of an International Conference, we decided as soon as we heard of the contemplated Chicago Conference, to postpone our meeting. In part, the Conference will deal with the many technical problems inseparable from the running of a civil air service. We hope not only to prepare the way for a greater degree of air co-operation in Southern Africa, but also to formulate, in conjunction with our Northern neighbours, the basis on which air services will be operated to avoid duplication and to ensure an adequate network of services operating with a maximum of efficiency. In Southern Africa, and I use this expression to cover all Africa south of the Equator, we have a vast geographical area with a quite trifling population judged by air-interest standards. The Union has approximately 2,000,000 Europeans, only a fraction of whom are ever likely to become habitually air-minded, and the total white population of the Northern territories, including our Portuguese and Belgian neighbours, is under 250,000. In these circumstances our own domestic and regional picture indicates that we will require an extensive, if not complicated, net of air services which can probably never be really economic nor, except for one or two of the main routes very intensive. It is interesting to note in this connection that the land area of the Southern Hemisphere is approximately 25 per cent. of the world’s earth surface and contains only about 7 per cent. of the world’s population. For the Union and South-West Africa the corresponding figures are roughly—area 1½ per cent. and population ½ per cent. These services will, however serve as connecting links between our own trunk routes and those from other countries operating on the world communications system. All British territories South of the Equator will be represented at the Conference. We hope thereafter to have discussions with our Portuguese and Belgian neighbours. An important item for discussion, and a development which the Union Government have much at heart, is that the trunk service from the Union to the United Kingdom should be a joint one, on a basis of reciprocity. Discussions have taken place with the United Kingdom on this matter, but its practicability and its details require further consideration before final agreement can be attained. It will be one of the subjects of discussion at the forthcoming Conference. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the members of the South African Delegation for the good work they did at the various Conferences and overseas discussions. Particularly would I mention Mr. John Martin who, at the request of the Union Government, attended all the Conferences and can claim a major share in their success. From what I have said, the House will appreciate that we are not lagging behind in the matter of post-war civil air transport planning. Bound up with this development are the progressive expansion of our commercial and economic relations with other countries in Southern Africa and elsewhere; the large field of employment for our South African airmen whose record deserves that they shall have these employment avenues available for them on their return to civil life; and the opportunities of training our future airmen through the expansion of our civil aviation services beyond the Union.

We have just had a very important statement from the Minister of Railways in connection with the future of our aviation. I do not want to discuss that this afternoon. I just want to say that when we hear that special praise is due to Mr. John Martin, we can only say that we hope that after all these negotiations and conferences, the Minister will still succeed in acting in the interests of South Africa, and South Africa only. But, as I have said, I do not want to discuss that. I want to deal with a few other points. The Minister is asking for an amount of £11,000,000 and I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without pointing out that last year members on this side of the House got up and warned the Minister that the time of huge surpluses was past and that he should tell us how he proposes to balance his budget the following year. He then stated with his usual smile, his sarcastic and complacent smile: “Leave the matter in my hands; you need not be so pessimistic; the facts will prove that I shall not have a deficit.” Those words had scarcely been uttered when there was a nett deficit of £480,000 in the first 3 months. Or let me put it this way. In the first 6 months from the 1st April to the 30th September, there was a nett deficit of £607,288. The time of surpluses is past. The Minister has spoken in the past of the little red light, and that has become a reality. The time of deficits has started, and moreover at a time when South Africa is still in a flourishing position, and when the Minister of Finance tells us every year that we are in a flourishing position and that other countries are jealous of our sound financial position. I have said on other occasions, and I want to mention it briefly, that the Railways constitute the best barometer of the conditions in the country generally, and since the Railways are already faced with a deficit of £600,000 for the first 6 months, it should also be a pointer to the Minister of Finance as to the direction in which the financial position of this country is going. The Minister is now faced with this difficulty. How can he cover his deficit? Last year I put this important question to him, and he stated that he believed that the people would not object to higher railway tariffs. I do not think he believed at that time that within such a short space of time he would find it necessary to increase the tariffs. But to me and to the Railway officials there is one alarming sigh. Other people were with me when it was announced over the wireless one evening that the Railway officials were to get an increase of 12½ per cent. in the near future. I then said that if the Railway officials were given an increase, it meant that a general election was imminent. Experience has taught us that. In 1938, a month before the election, the then Minister of Railways announced an increase in the wages of the lowly paid officials, and in the last election in 1943, the Minister also announced a 5 per cent. responsibility allowance. I immediately thought of an election therefore. I then started to wonder how the Minister would raise the money. We then heard the unpleasant news which accompanied the announcement, unpleasant as far as the public is concerned, that the Minister was going to increase the Railway tariffs by 10 per cent. all round. I want to say very clearly that we welcome the increase which the Railway officials got. We on this side, particularly the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Hayward), continually pleaded for an increase in the salaries of the officials, and we therefore welcome the increase and concession. But what disturbs us is that the Minister found it necessary to impose a 10 per cent. increase on the general tariffs for the public. The Minister announced that this 10 per cent. would be used to grant an increase in the salaries of the Railwaymen and to improve their position. But is that quite correct? Oh, no. In reply to the following question of mine—

he stated—

I then asked the Minister what he expected the 10 per cent. general increase to yield and the reply was £2,637,000, and during the period 1st April, 1944, to 30th September, 1944, there was a deficit of £607,000 in respect of the first six months. The Minister represented this 10 per cent. increase as an increase which was necessary only in order to cover the increase in the salaries of the officials. We have no fault to find with that. Every right thinking person would be prepared to accept it as long as it is designed to improve the position of those people. That is why I say that I thought a General Election was imminent. The staff is grateful for the increase, and we do not begrudge it to them, but the staff also feels perturbed at the loss which is shown by the South African Railways in these good times which we are experiencing. They also know that after the war when the people can again get petrol and use their own motor cars, and when coal and other goods will no longer be exported and we return to normal conditions, it stands to reason that the revenue of the Railways will drop. There is cause for further anxiety when we bear in mind that the Minister has already imposed a 15 per cent. war tax on the Railways, and now he is imposing a further 10 per cent. What will the result be when normal times return? The people will study their own pockets and they will discover that the increased tariffs imposed by the Minister represent a great burden, and they will look for cheaper methods of transport. The staff is perturbed about that point. Although they welcome the increase, they feel concerned about the future, because they know as well as I do, and as well as the Minister, that you cannot use the tariff reserve fund to keep the tariffs on the same level and also to maintain the wages of the people at the same level. The staff of the South African Railways knows that in the past in similar circumstances, they have either had to work shorter hours or wages have had to be reduced. The official was always at the short end of the stick. For that reason they do not feel altogether happy about the Minister’s increase of 10 per cent. I want to confine myself to a few things in connection with the Railway staff. As long as three years ago we got up in this House and told the Minister of two things in regard to which his staff was seriously perturbed. The first is his method and his General Manager’s method of manipulating posts, the elevator-system which they apply, and the other was the manner in which the policy of bilingualism was being applied to the Railways. As far as the first matter is concerned, it has been discussed here ad nauseum, but I just want to refer to a question which I put to the Minister in connection with the Manager and the Assistant Manager of the S.A. Airways. Since the Minister spoke of aviation, it is perhaps as well just to give the reply to the question which I put to him. The Manager is a certain Mr. Holtzhausen and the Assistant Manager is Col. Leverton. Mr. Holtzhausen was appointed as Manager on the 14th September, 1936, at a salary of £1,400, and it is remarkable that the Assistant Manager was appointed in June, 1944, at a salary of £1,800. Just imagine, in South Africa we have this position that the Airways Manager draws a salary of £1,400 while the Assistant Manager draws a salary of £1,800. I do not want to go into the career of Col. Leverton this afternoon. I know him well. Only last year he was superintendent (Parliamentary). I do not know whether he occupied that position for a long time, whether it was for more than one Parliamentary Session. I do not want to go into the question of how his salary has been increased during the war; but since the Minister made such an important statement, I think we cannot expect the public to be satisfied and the staff to be satisfied with this type of thing where the Manager gets £1,400 and his assistant £1,800. In passing I just want to mention that I asked how many superintendents there were on the staff in the General Manager’s office and how many posts there were. There are four posts, one with a maximum salary of £1,200. That post was degraded to £1,050, and another post of £1,050 was elevated to £1,200. I asked the Minister why this change had been made and the reply was that it was the result of a rearrangement of work in the staff office. The Leader of the Opposition referred last year to the elevator system, under which posts are degraded so that they can come within the reach of certain officials who are then selected for special promition, and once the person concerned has been appointed the maximum salary of that post is again increased. We have mentioned this repeatedly, but I want to tell the Minister today that a stop should be put to it, otherwise he cannot expect the staff to be satisfied. I want to tell you that the general impression is that the General Manager is adopting the following procedure. He uses the elevator system to lift some of his personal friends from the bottom and then he appoints them to responsible posts. There is no promotion on merit, and there is more and more dissatisfaction in regard to this type of thing. But there is also dissatisfaction in regard to the policy of bilingualism on the S.A. Railways. Two or three years ago, in 1943, I informed the House that the General Manager had addressed private and confidential letters to people in his Department. Just imagine “confidential letters”! It was stated in those letters that certain unilingual persons were not to be eliminated, but that they were to be taken into consideration when nominations were invited for posts, and that their names should be forwarded together with particulars. The Minister stated at that time that that was in order to find out who was unilingual, that they continued to apply the policy of bilingualism. But they did not continue to do so, because a few days ago I asked the Minister whether unilingual persons could be promoted in the service to salaried (non-clerical) positions without passing any language examination. The Minister replied: “Yes, in certain circumstances.” I then asked—

I received this reply—

I want to tell the Minister that he should try to keep the General Manager in check. We warned him in 1943 that he should apply the policy of bilingualism. But the Minister took no steps and unilingual persons are now being promoted, people whom the late Mr. Charlie Malan gave five years’ grace, from 1925 to 1930, to qualify in both official languages, and thereafter Mr. Pirow gave them a further opportunity to qualify up to the 31st December, 1939. Although these two Ministers have already given them every reasonable opportunity to qualify in both official languages the Minister is not satisfied yet. He promoted them on the vague condition that they have to qualify within two years of their promotion.

And if they are not bilingual within two years, they will not be demoted.

Two years ago I read to the House a confidential letter which had been circularised by the General Manager’s office, and from that letter it appeared how the elevator system was applied and how unilingual persons were promoted. And now we find that they are still carrying on with this system. I put the following question to the Minister—

The reply was—

I want to refresh the memory of the House a little. Last year the General Manager stated in his report that out of 80,000 Europeans in the Railway service, 80 per cent. were Afrikaans-speaking and 20 per cent. English-speaking, and the General Manager went On to say that although that was the position and the English-speaking persons only represented 20 per cent. of the staff, they occupied 80 per cent. of the senior posts, while the Afrikaans-speaking persons who represent 80 per cent. of the staff, occupy only 20 per cent. of the senior posts. In other words, they did see their way clear to work out how many Afrikaans-speaking people there were. How did they work it out? And now I have a letter here which was circularised on the 13th June, 1944—a circular letter. Here it is stated—

Let me explain that. It has always been the practice to make out a card for every Railway official, on the day he joins the Service, containing full details as to his name, address and also his home language. Now instructions have been given that that information is no longer to be inserted.

That was done with the approval of the Government.

The Minister now says that he approved of the action of the General Manager. The Minister is now trying to whitewash the General Manager as much as possible. Well, in that case the Minister is co-responsible and the whole Cabinet for the wedge which they are driving in as far as the policy of bilingualism on the Railways is concerned. This létter goes on to say—

1. (a) The question—
   “which of the two official languages is your home language?”
   is to be deleted from all forms issued to candidates in future, and
2. (b) following upon the question—
   “Does your school certificate include both official languages as ‘pass’ subjects”
   should be added the further question—
   “If not, what is the standard of proficiency attained in the language in which you did not secure a pass.”

In the first place these cards must no longer contain any information as to the man’s home language, and furthermore, in the application for employment form, this question must be omitted, and the only question which is to be asked is whether and to what extent the person is qualified in the official languages. But when we ask whether unilingual persons were promoted, we get an affirmative reply. It will be seen that this information is now to be omitted in order to be able to evade such troublesome questions in connection with bilingualism. It will be said that they no longer have the information. A further reason for the change is apparently that the General Manager is promoting a number of his favourites under the elevator-system, and he is afraid that if a change of Government takes place in the future, the next Minister of Railways will be able to ascertain who is English-speaking and who is Afrikaansspeaking and how promotions were made, and he wants to avoid that. They are afraid of their own deeds. But let me tell them that their fear is unfounded. The other day one of the English newspapers said that if there was one man who saw to it that the English-speaking Afrikaners obtained their rights and against whom they had no complaint in that respect, it was the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. They need not be afraid of their own deeds. But I want to say that in fairness, where people were fetched by elevator at the bottom and other people who were capable were left behind, the elevator should return to pick up those capable persons. I want to put it this way. It should be no more than equitable to fetch those capable men at the bottom with the elevator. But there need be no fear of discrimination as between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. I think the General Manager of Railways need only bear in mind that he himself is English-speaking, and then he should recall how the late Mr. C. W. Malan treated him. If he recalls that, he will realise that it is not necessary for him to take this step of having the home language of the people erased from their enlistment cards, merely because he is ostensibly afraid of corruption. He need only judge the Afrikaner by the manner in which the late Mr. C. W. Malan treated him, an English-speaking official. I want to conclude on this note. I hope the Minister of Railways, since he has accepted co-responsibility for this idea, and since he is now interfering in the action of the General Manager, will put a stop to those things, and that it will no longer be necessary for us to complain in this House about the elevator-system and the manipulation of posts in order to promote certain persons.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House regrets that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has suggested that promotion in our Railway Administration is by the favour of the General Manager.

It was proved last year.

The Opposition believes that the Afrikaans-speaking railway man has not received fair consideration. We on this side have always felt that the English-speaking railwayman has not received his due, and that being so, I am sure that the Minister may rest content that there is no unfair treatment as far as the promotion in the Railway Administration is concerned.

Says you!

It has been proved time and again that all promotions in the Railway Service are not, as hitherto, just based on the length of service, for it was laid down by the Minister a few years ago that ability would also be taken into consideration, and as regards promotions today one invariably finds it is a matter of service plus ability, which indicates to the Administration the man who is entitled to promotion. There is no question of favouritism at all. That seems to me the only point so far raised by the Opposition in this debate, but I am sure you will agree with me when I say that the House is very grateful to the hon. the Minister for his clear statement in connection with the post-war air transport problem.

That has not been settled yet.

Members will all appreciate the rôle played by the Railway Administration in the pre-war period as far as air transport is concerned. The Railways were then able to demonstrate the value of air transport not only in the Union but in the neighbouring African territories, and today we are pleased to note that the Union, owing to its strategic position, is determined not only to play its part but to play a very important rôle in any post-war air transport scheme. We all appreciate the comradeship of the air. The air is free. There are no frontiers. I feel that air transport will, after the war, certainly remove all artificial boundaries between this country and our neighbours. Already we see various countries jockeying for position. Not only do they jockey for position but they are striving for commercial domination, and one does feel that owing to our strategic position we should show our determination to play a very important rôle in any post-war air transport scheme by very definitely and firmly staking our claims to all strategic air routes. The Minister tells us that we were represented at the Chicago Congress. He has told us what the attitude of our representatives was there, and that a pan-African congress is to be held in Cape Town some time next month. We would like to give him the definite assurance that the Commonwealth scheme of air transport is the one we will support wholeheartedly. I hope too that he will give us the definite assurance that in this country, owing to our strategic position and realising the value of post-war air transport, South Africa, together with the other countries in the world, is determined to lift its wings and fly. Now, if I may go on to certain Railway matters, I wish to say that this vote, owing to the fact that on the main budget very little time is allowed for the discussion of Railway matters, has by custom come to be looked upon as the Railway Budget Vote; and I have one or two criticisms to offer, constructive, I hope, but at the same time I want to give credit where credit is due. Today we are all living in an atmosphere of the end of the war feeling, and possibly we are inclined to overlook the very valuable services which have been rendered by the Railway Administration as regards this country’s war effort, and so that we might have the correct background I think it might be just as well if I refer to the magnificent effort that has been made by our South African Railways Administration in the rôle played by this country in the war. I think I am almost justified in going so far as to say—and no doubt the House will agree with me if I say so—that had it not been for the vast resources of the Railways, coupled with the loyalty and skill of railwaymen of all grades, this country’s war effort would not have succeeded as it has done. We know that out of approximately 80,000 European employees on the railways, at times no less a number than 14.000 were released for military service, 14.000 artisans, men who owing to their special qualifications and their experience in railway and construction work have played a very conspicuous rôle in many theatres of war. There are men too our railway engineers, who have gained unstinted praise from very high quarters. Not only have our railwaymen played this conspicuous part in the theatres of war outside the Union, but in the Union itself, I go so far as to say that our railway workshops have proved to be the backbone of the munition industry in South Africa. In our railway workshops, situated at various large railway centres in the country, the manufacture of all war material, armoured cars, mortars, gun-sights and the very important ship repair work has been undertaken, and I feel that all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the highest credit is due to our railwaymen who without any special training at all, have been able to undertake the most intricate work with the greatest possible skill. That is what has happened both outside and in the Union, and that is the part played by the South African Railways. I would just like to refer for a moment to what the Railway Administration intends doing in the post-war period. We all speak very glibly about social security, and various social security schemes that have been put forward, but to my mind the one thing which will solve most of our social problems is the question of employment. Give everyone suitable employment at a suitable wage and you will find a lot of your difficulties disappearing. Well, the Railways are setting a very fine example in this regard. We know that the Railways have undertaken not only to re-employ all railwaymen on active service, but they have also undertaken to give employment to an additional 2,500 men who are today away on active service, men who prior to enlistment were not railway servants. Not only do they undertake to give these men employment but they provide for their training, in that the Railways decided at the end of last year on what is to be known as the Railwaymen’s University, an institution which is being established at Kaalfontein, where railwaymen will be able to receive training in various branches in railway works; and these men, on returning from active service will receive their training, to fit them for work which the Railways are prepared to give them. In addition to this post-war scheme as regards employment, the Railways have provided an amount of approximately £30.000,000 for post-war development. Naturally a large proportion of this monev will be spent on the larger Railway centres, but a pleasing feature of the scheme is that a very considerable amount will be devoted towards the development of smaller rural areas. Although an amount of £90,000,000 will be spent on capital and betterment works, spread over a period of years, that expenditure will be so allocated that the smaller centres will receive their fair share. Just as an indication I will mention one or two amounts. We find that £10,000,000 is provided for new harbour work, £3,000,000 is provided for airways, £20,000,000 for new rolling stock, and I might mention that the bulk of the new rolling stock will be manufactured in this country. We sincerely hope that the day will soon be here when locomotives will also be manufactured by the Railways themselves in this country. As I have said, a large amount of this money is to go to the smaller rural areas, but many larger centres will benefit, and I might just mention one or two of the details which might be of interest to hon. members. We find, for example, that in Cape Town, where we have already seen the magnificent reclamation work, which has almost been completed, there is a graving dock which will be completed in June of this year, I understand, and will be one of the largest graving docks in the Southern hemisphere, capable of accommodating a ship the size of the Queen Mary. In addition to that work we know that Cape Town is to have its Railway Hotel. We know that it is to have a new railway station, and its new railway yard lay-out. And we hope, in the very near future, that the main line will be electrified up to Touws River. At Pretoria we find that in addition to the new railway workshops they are also to have an up-to-date. Railway Hotel situated in Church Square, where it will not only be a credit to the capital, but of use in catering adequately for our tourist traffic. Durban is also to have a new station and a new lay-out. Johannesburg is to have its new station and a large new headquarters office. Port Elizabeth is to have a new station, running shed and marshalling yard. At Kimberley—and great credit is due to the member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. W. B. Humphreys)—will have its new railway works at a cost of about £750,000. But the greatest development is to take place in the Cape Midlands. Port Elizabeth, as the capital of that area, expects huge developments in the motor industry, and if is just as well, in view of that expected development, that our Railways should be prepared to meet that expansion. Uitenhage, as we know, is to have a South African Woollen Textile Factory. Incidentally I might mention that it is the only centre in the country which could have been selected for that factory. We are also to have one of the most up-to-date and largest boot and shoe factories in the country establishing itself at Uitenhage at a very early date. To meet this tremendous development Uitenhage will have a new railway station and railway workshops. Might I urge upon the Minister the necessity of proceeding, as regards the railway workshops at Uitenhage at the earlist possible date? The ground has been provided by the Municipality and there are certain shops in the railway depôt that have to be renewed almost immediately. I think the Minister knows of these two shops. They are the blacksmith shop and the foundry. These two old shops are a disgrace to the Administration. They are shops which are most unhealthy from the point of view of the men working there, intensely hot during the summer months and bitterly cold during the winter period. As a matter of fact, only a few days ago I was told that work in these shops had to cease owing to the intense heat. In the interests of the men and in the interests of the Administration, I would like to see a start made with the erection of the new blacksmith shop and foundry on the new site as early as possible. In connection with that I would like to say that I hope the new station lay-out will be completed before the end of this year. The ground which is being vacated by the present railway works at Uitenhage, I would suggest, should be handed over to the Municipality in return for the new sites granted by the Municipality. In turn, I would like the Administration to request the Municipality to reserve these areas as open spaces, in the interests of the inhabitants in that vicinity, most of them being railway employees. There is just one further matter and that is in connection with the Railway House Ownership scheme. This is a very excellent scheme but unfortunately it has been found to have one or two minor defects and obstacles in the way, as regards men taking advantage of the scheme. It is a very excellent scheme for a place like Uitenhage where ground is available. In its own interest and for the sake of the men the Administration should see to it that the scheme is made as efficient as possible. I would suggest that the scheme be examined by a committee with the object of removing some of these minor defects and so making the scheme more popular. Uitenhage, in addition to very rapidly becoming a very important industrial centre, will always remain a very attractive residential area, and we find that members of the business community in Port Elizabeth are in increasing numbers taking up residence in Uitenhage. As a matter of fact, today we have over 1,000 people travelling daily between Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. In view of that, and in view of the anticipated increase in the traffic, I would like the Administration as soon as possible to consider the possibility of the electrification of the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth railway line. I find that there is just one other matter in connection with the Railway workshops generally throughout the Union which I want to discuss, and which I want to ask the Minister to consider. Today, as we know, owing to the new pay schedules which have been introduced—in that connection I wish to congratulate the Minister and the Railway Administration on the improved working conditions, as regards hours and rates of pay, introduced as from 1st October last year—in spite of what the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg has said, generally speaking, I find that the railwaymen are satisfied with the new rates of pay. Let me say this also, that in spite of the fact that the rates payable to railwaymen have been increased, in spite of the fact that all charges as regards the Railway Administration have increased, our South African Railways are the only railways in the world which have not found it necessary during the war to increase the railway rates. I do not refer to the 10 per cent. which was levied from October last year. It has been admitted by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg that that surcharge was levied for the specifie purpose of providing for the special increase of pay to the men, but as regards the running charges it has not been found necessary by our Railways to increase its railway fares. But the point I wish to refer to in conclusion is that we find that as the result of the new pay schedule, under which the 25 per cent. bonus benefit is now made part of the substantial rate of pay of the artisan—the artisan has had his rate of pay increased from 2/7½d. per hour to 3/6d., which includes the original 25 per cent. bonus—the Administration will agree with me I am sure, when I say that as the result of that, in my opinion, at any rate, greater supervision in our railway workshops is necessary. That being so, I would suggest to the Minister that the Administration should consider the question of the appointment of two works managers at each railway depôt. At present we only have two works managers at two of the Railway centres, Salt River and Durban. Pretoria only has one, with another one at Germiston. Bloemfontein has one, and Uitenhage has only one works manager. In all our railway work there is the iron side as well as the wood side of the work, and it is almost impossible to secure one individual who is efficient in both the iron and the wood side of railway work. So in the interests of the Administration I would suggest that in each railway depot two works managers should be appointed, one a wood man, and the other an iron man, and if that is done it will be found to be definitely in the interests of the Administration. Apart from that, it would also provide a further avenue of promotion for our senior foremen in our railway works.

We have listened with considerable interest to the statement which was made by the Minister of Transport with regard to the International Air Conference at Chicago. Undoubtedly the hon. Minister has a somewhat difficult task; he has to represent in the best possible light, the results of the conference which, while achieving certain results on matters of technical detail, did not however realise what was expected from it. To put it in plain language, the Chicago Air Conference was not a success. Very great hopes were set on that conference, but right from the start it was realised it would be very difficult to reconcile the interests of the conflicting parties. The main difficulty was the conflict of interests as between the United States of America and Great Britain. It has been no secret that for some considerable time both these countries are preparing for postwar competition, post-war competition not only in regard to ordinary trade, but more particularly in regard to civil aviation, it being realised that after this war commercial aviation is going to play a much more important part than in the past in regard to passenger traffic and the carrying of goods. It was realised that would be the most important part, especially in view of the tremendous developments that have taken place in aviation during the war period. Great Britain and the United States went to this conference in the position of players, each trying to get the best for his own country, for his own interests, and in this particular case each country held a trump card. The trump card held by the United States of America was the fact that she has a very large number of commercial planes. The American commercial air fleet is, according to figures that have been quoted, three or four times larger than that of Great Britain, and of course we are mindful of what the Right Hon. the Prime Minister stated in his “explosive” speech in London, viz. that as far as Great Britain is concerned there is nothing left in the till. England would, he said, come out of this war with great glory and prestige, but with nothing left in the till. The United States of America has the planes and it has the money. The trump card held by Britain, on the other hand, was that she has the necessary air-bases in different parts of the world, a trump card which is most important and most valuable. Each of those countries was prepared to play its trump card. The trouble was they were not able to reconcile their interests. The result was that in regard to the main objects for which this conference was called, no unity was secured. The Hon. the Minister of Transport has referred to a certain amount of success which was achieved in regard to technical points. He mentioned certain points, but he also stated that in regard to the most important of these points, the freedom to embark and discharge on any territory, no agreement was reached. I think it is generally acknowledged—the press has acknowledged it and it has been acknowledged by the British representatives—that the Air Conference at Chicago was not a success; and so the matter stands for the present. But it is interesting to note that very shortly after the conference at Chicago a statement appeared in the press, a press despatch from London, dated 12th January this year, in which it was stated that final plans were being drawn up for a British Commonwealth Conference on Civil Aviation to be held before April of this year, probably in London, and that this conference is expected to set up a Commonwealth Secretariat. Mr. Colin Bednall of the “Daily Mail” states—

It is very clear that this suggestion for a Commonwealth organisation in regard to aviation, and also the suggestion that a Commonwealth Secretariat should be started came as a direct result of the disappointment which followed upon the breakdown of the International Chicago Conference. In other words, Great Britain decided that, the other conference having broken down and there being no hope of securing unanimity on the very important question of the embarking and discharging of goods on any territory, there was no purpose in looking for agreement on international lines, and that the only alternative was to set up an Empire organisation. That decision is of very great importance to us in South Africa, because that is where we come into the picture! At the conference in Chicago we had our two representatives, the South African Minister in Washington and Mr. John Martin; but I have no doubt, as has happened at similar conferences in the past, that in view of the issues at stake, the South African delegation at this conference, especially one of the members, Mr. John Martin, were to all intents and purposes part of the British Empire delegation. In view of the character of the discussions, and of the issues involved, the South African delegation was virtually a part of the British delegation. In this matter, as in so many other matters—(and we are expecting similar matters after the war)—we have the position that the interests of South Africa as the result of the policy of the present Government and of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, has been subordinated to those of the British Empire.

Do you not want an international convention?

Yes, we want an international convention, but the chances of securing an international convention have gone by the board, and what is now suggested in its place is a British Empire Secretariat and a British Empire organisation standing outside any international organisation. The position therefore is that once more we are being obliged to subordinate our own interests to those of the greater interest in the British Commonwealth. There may be times when the interests of the Commonwealth and our own interests may be identical; but it also happens, in this case of aviation, having regard to our position on the continent of Africa which I think we can regard legitimately as our particular sphere of influence, our territory—it happens that in this particular instance our interests are subordinated to those of the Commonwealth, and the efforts of our Government have not been directed at securing the interests of South Africa itself. That is the position as it is at present, and what I have just said is confirmed by this despatch from which I quoted. Further on it says—

A very interesting question that arises is what is going to be the attitude of Canada? There have been indications in the past, and again recently, that Canada is tending more and more to throw in her lot with the United States of America. There are indications that in Canada there is a strong feeling towards joining the Pan-American Conference, and it will be most interesting to see what will happen in this matter of aviation, having regard to Canada’s position. That is as the matter stands at present. We have not been taken any further. The Minister referred to a conference which is going to be held here shortly in connection with aviation in Africa. I hope that that conference may go some way towards solving our own particular problems in the continent of Africa, but on the other hand I do not know whether there is going to be another conference—I am not sure whether the Minister mentioned this—but it is quite obvious if we are first to have a conference here, our position may be prejudiced when we later participate in an international conference if such a conference is héld. I rather think we have heard the last of international conferences in this respect, because the interests of the United States of America and of England are too divergent, and the competition is too strong. I think we are in for a period of intensive post-war competition in the matter of international aviation. I want to raise another matter, and I am glad the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is present. I would be glad to have his attention, because when this matter was raised at the end of last Session the Minister of Finance, in reply to a suggestion made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, undertook to bring the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. He gave that undertaking, but I cannot say whether the Minister of Finance has carried it out. In view of the fact I have the opportunity of again discussing this matter, I wish very briefly to recapitulate what was stated on the previous occasion, and also to refresh the memories of hon. members of this House, and of the Minister of Transport. On the last occasion I raised the question of a contract entered into between the Railway Administration and the South African Association in regard to the supply of water at Hutchinson station. It appeared that although this contract was entered into with the South African Association, the contract is in fact one between the South African Railways and Senator Conroy, the Minister of Lands. I may say in passing that about half an hour ago one of the Whips on this side of the House telephoned to the private secretary to Senator Conroy to say that I was again raising the matter. I do not like raising such a matter in the absence of the Minister, and I took the precaution of advising him of my intention beforehand. The position is this, that in 1938 this contract was renewed with the South African Association. At that time the amount paid for the supply of water at Hutchinson was £2,373. Since then the amount has increased progressively. In 1943 the sum paid was £4,680 for the supply of water by Senator Conroy to the Railway Administration. I put a question at the beginning of this Session, and from the information gained it appears that during the year 1944 the amount paid for the supply of water was £4,662. There has been an increase in consumption, which is to a certain extent responsible for an increase in the amount paid out to the Minister via the S.A. Association. But it also appears from the information given by the Minister of Transport in reply to my question when I raised the matter last time, that there has also been a substantial increase in price. In 1938 the scale of payment was £135 per month in respect of 95,000 gallons of water daily, plus 1s. per 1,000 gallons extra. In 1935 that contract was transferred to the South African Association, but as I pointed out previously, the Minister of Lands is still deriving the full benefit of the contract. I hope the Minister will accept my word that it is so, because I would not like to go into the private affairs of the Minister, though if my statement is questioned I may be obliged to do so. It can be accepted from me that the Minister gets the full benefit of money paid to the South African Association. In 1938 a new agreement was entered into which provided for a minimum supply of 72000 gallons a day with a maximum of 130,000 gallons a day, and at this stage the price was raised to 1s. 3d. per 1,000 gallons. In 1941 the price was once more increased, this time to 1s. 4d. per 1.000 gallons; and in 1943, two years later, the price was again increased to 1s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons. There has thus been a 50 per cent. increase between 1935 and 1943. The Minister explains the increase by saying that was due to increased cost of production owing to war conditions. I submit it would need some proving to show that the expenses actually increased by 50 per cent. That, I say would need some proving. That is the position today. The question as to the propriety of this contract, is a matter which I shall discuss a little later. But in the meantime another question arises, a most important question. I can conceive a situation where the Railway Administration might be obliged to take water from a certain person because no other water was available, though even then I submit it would not have been the right thing in the case of a Minister. It is a question of propriety as to whether such a contract should be entered into between a Minister of the Crown and the Railway Administration even in such circumstances. But this is a different case. I did not have certain information when I discussed the matter last year, and that is why I am raising it again today. Since then we have received further information. I put a number of questions to the Minister of Transport, and from the replies given by the Minister it appears that there are seven Railway boreholes at Hutchinson Station. The reply of the Minister is this. In the first place, that these boreholes would not give sufficient water for the full needs of the Administration. He states, in the second place, that the water varies in quality, and under these circumstances—that is the Minister’s contention—it is more economical for the Administration to enter into this contract with the Minister of Lands through the South African Association. The Minister states that the capacity of three of the new boreholes was tested 15 years ago. There has apparently been no attempt for fifteen years to ascertain the strength of those boreholes, but I have information from private sources—I do not say the information is correct, and I give it for what it is worth, I have not seen the boreholes myself—that these boreholes are still very strong. Fifteen years ago they were tested and yielded from 2,600 gallons to 2,700 gallons per horn, each of them. The tests were carried out on one borehole at a time. I put questions to the Minister, and in reply I got only estimates, I got opinions. Anybody knows, any farmers on this side of the House or on that side of the House knows that it is a comparatively easy matter to test the strength of a borehole. This matter was raised last Session, and the Minister appreciated the importance of this matter. It is so important that even the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition then intervened in the debate and went so far as to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the seriousness of the issues raised, to bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister. One would have imagined under those circumstances the Minister of Transport would have given instructions to have a special test made of these boreholes. No, all he can give us are the figures of fifteen years ago. Further he estimates that if the three boreholes were pumped simultaneously they would give an average yield of not more than 5,000 gallons an hour. He also states that experience has proved that it is not advisable to pump from boreholes for longer periods than twelve hours a day and it was not expected that the yield would exceed 60,000 gallons a day. There is no record of the remaining boreholes having been tested. But the yield many years ago—it is very vague, and as I say in regard to the Minister of Lands it is distinctly vague and embarrassing—the yield many years ago was estimated at 2,000 gallons daily each, or 25,000 gallons over a pumping period of twelve hours per day. Now what does that mean? In the first place I think we can take it that these figures quoted by the Minister of Transport are conservative figures, very conservative. In fact, my information is the yield is larger than that. I say therefore that the figures are conservative. But taking his own figures, his own estimate works out at 135,000 gallons a day and his contract with the Minister of Lands is for a minimum of 72,000 and a maximum of 150,000 gallons, but he did admit when this matter was discussed that they had been delivering up to 180,000 gallons a day. In the reply given by the Minister in connection with this matter it was stated that the water varies in quality. He stated there are seven boreholes including one condemned for use for domestic purposes, and that one gave an inadequate yield and was closed many years ago. The main object of the water supply at Hutchinson is for supplying locomotives.

And for domestic purposes.

And for domestic purposes, but the suggestion conveyed by the Minister in this respect is that the one borehole is of no use, because it is not fit for domestic purposes, but I think the Minister will admit that the water is perfectly good for locomotives, and so you cannot leave it out of account. Surely the Minister cannot deny that?

None of the boreholes there provide water that is good for locomotives. All the water has to be treated.

The Minister says that none of the water obtained there is good for locomotives. The water has to be treated by a softener. May I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that water from the Administration’s boreholes goes through a softener?

The water all goes through.

Exactly. Although there is more than one borehole, the water goes through the same process, through the one softener. Therefore this argument does not go down, viz. that one borehole is not suitable for domestic purposes. We have those Railway boreholes yielding 135,000 gallons a day, and the further fact that the water that is secured from the Minister’s boreholes also has to go through the softener. Those are the facts, the Minister’s own facts. I have left out of account the information which I have received from other sources, realising it is preferable to base my argument only on the facts and figures submitted by the Minister in reply to my questions. Those are the facts, and now we come to the very important question of principle. We have the fact that a contract has been entered into with the Minister of Lands by the Railway Administration. We have the further fact that since the Minister accepted a portfolio in this Cabinet he has received an increase in the price of the water. I submit that is a most important point, in view of what I am about to say. Had it been a case of there being no other water available for use by the Railways, and of the Minister being compelled to have the water because otherwise his trains might stop, it would have been a somewhat different matter. But here we have the fact that after the Minister had become a Minister of the Crown he receives an increase in price of 50 per cent. for the water supplied to the Railway Administration. We have the third fact that the South African Railways have at Hutchinson a large water supply of their own amounting to 135,000 gallons per diem. The Minister says that it is more economical to get his water from one source. In my own town the water supply is derived by the Administration from its own boreholes as well as from the municipality. He receives his supply there from two sources; that is my information. Now we have to deal with an important question of principle, i.e. of a contract entered into between a Minister of the Crown and the Railway Administration. I think that the Prime Minister is well acquainted with the standards set up in public life not only in this country but also in Great Britain, on which our own Parliamentary system has been based to a very large extent. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will agree, and I am sure the hon. Minister of Finance would agree, that it is most necessary that a Minister should not have any financial dealings with the Government of which he is a member; in other words the Ministers should like Caeser’s wife, be above suspicion. Very often when matters of procedure are discussed in this House, it has become the practice to quote from the precedents and practice of the British Parliament. I am proceeding to do the same thing. I am referring to the same quotation I gave last time, particularly for the benefit of the Prime Minister. This matter was raised in Great Britain during the course of the Marconi debate, the debate on the well-known Marconi scandal. Mr. Asquith, the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, according to Jennings’ “Cabinet Government”, a well-known authority on these matters, stated then—

I direct particular attention to these words.

Mr. Asquith says—

Take the matter generally. Let us for the moment leave the Minister of Lands out of it. Mr. Asquith refers to the question of a Minister using influence in order to secure certain benefits for himself. One can well conceive the enormous power such a Minister would have if he chose to use his influence with some railway official, for example. I make it perfectly clear that I do not say that the hon. Minister has done it, but he must be above suspicion. There must be no suspicion that he might have asked an official to report that there is not sufficient water, and that they should buy water from him. That is what Mr. Asquith meant. Mr. Asquith proceeds to quote what he calls the rules of obligation—

Could it be put more clearly, and is there a case to which it is more applicable? Could it be more applicable than to the position occupied in this matter by the Minister of Lands? A further statement to which I would like to refer is a statement made by Lord Palmerston in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, where he said—

That is the crux of the whole matter. At the time this contract was entered into, it was entered into with Senator Conroy, but afterwards, when it was renewed and the increase in price took place, these increases of price were made not with Senator Conroy but with the same person who had since become the Minister of Lands. I say therefore that this remark made by Lord Palmerston to Mr. Gladstone is very pertinent to this particular case. May I refer also to the position in South Africa. I am not aware of any particular legislation in connection with this House, but there are very strong rules laid down in connection with municipalities. May I refer, Mr. Speaker, you and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to the Municipal Ordinance of the Cape which reads—

Mr. Speaker, I say it in all seriousness, that if it was necessary to lay down such very strict rules in connection with an ordinary municipal councillor, how much the more is is not necessary to have equally strict and stricter rules in connection with the position occupied by a man who is a Minister of the Crown, particularly where huge sums of money are involved, as in this case. And this is further confirmed in the case of Scholtz vs. Labuschagne, where the Judge said as follows—

May I mention a case which happened in my own town recently. A local attorney there, who is also an auctioneer, hires from the municipality a piece of ground on which to hold his stock fairs. He pays a nominal rental of 1s. per annum, but because of that fact, his wife, who was a few months ago, elected to the municipal council was obliged to resign her seat, because her husband paid 1s. a year for that piece of ground. But here we have a case where a Minister of the Crown is concerned in a transaction in which a large sum of money, altogether amounting to £26,000 is involved. I may mention that there is also the question of electric current supplied by the Minister which comes to about £700 per annum, but we will leave that out of account for the moment. The main question is that of the water supply. I therefore hope that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will make it very clear to us what his attitude is in the matter. I say the principle is clear. The facts are also clear. We have the fact that the boreholes have never been tested for 15 years and the further fact that there are only estimates given by the Minister of Transport, and the fact that there is a possibility in such a case—other cases may arise in the future—where influence may be brought to bear on officers of the administration. There is no doubt that in such cases there must not even be a semblance, as it was so well put by Mr. Asquith, a semblance of self interest. I think every word I quoted here today in regard to the Marconi case is applicable in this case. I trust that in the interest of the high standards of public life which we have established in this House and in the country, the Prime Minister will realise that this sort of thing conflicts with those standards, and that he wll realise that, in the interest of maintaing such standards, the sooner the contract with the Minister is ended, the better.

On the motion of Mr. Haywood, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 21st February.