I move—

I object.

Amendments to be considered on 25th May.

I move an amendment—

I should like to move the following amendment—

This amendment was rejected by the United Party in the Select Committee, but afterwards a clause was added to the effect that the Minister can separate Europeans and non-Europeans administratively. Our point of view is that if administratively one separates Europeans and non-Europeans on the Voters’ List in the various divisions, what objections can there be either from the Europeans or from the non-Europeans to incorporate that in the Act? It will not hurt the Europeans to appear separately from the coloureds on Voters’ Lists, because today they are separate, administratively. It will not hurt the coloureds if there is a separate list for them, because they are today separate, administratively; they are dealt with separately. I should now like to hear from hon. members opposite what objection there can be to incorporating it in the Act, if Europeans and coloureds are grouped separately on the Voters’ Lists? If there is no objection to separating them in the Act, what objection can there be to placing them in two separate books instead of one book? This provision was originally approved of by the Select Committee, but later, for one or other inexplicable reason, the United Party again declared themselves to be against it. The reason for that is not clear to me even at this moment. I wish to press the Minister for this amendment and I wish to tell him that we from this side ask for a minimum number of amendments. We should like to see this Bill passed by the House because it contains principles which we would like to have on the Statute Book, just as other members opposite. Therefore we have this morning limited our amendments to an absolute minimum, but as regards that minimum we are firmly convinced, and it is our request to the Government that the few amendments put by us should be thoroughly considered before they are rejected. For that reason I move this amendment. Where Europeans and coloureds are already separately mentioned in one and the same book, we want to have separate books. Why? There are many places in the country, in the Cape Province and in Natal, where there are no coloured voters at all, or only a few, but there are other places where there are quite a number of coloureds, but where certain parties do not need the lists of coloured voters. But now because the coloureds are also included in the same list and book, the book becomes much thicker than it would otherwise have been, and we now have to pay much more for the book because it is thicker. If we can have a book containing only the names of European voters it will not be so thick. It may not be such an important matter if only one list is involved, but if one requires 40 or 50 or 100 books it makes an appreciable difference to a political party whether it needs only the list of Europeans or also that of coloureds. The Minister stated yesterday that if we do not require the list of coloureds we can tear it out. My reply is that one has to pay for it; the party buying the book must pay for it. Why should they be put into that position? It will cost the State no more to bind the list in separate covers. The costs of printing will not be increased by that. Then the coloureds can be included in a separate book under a separate cover. That is all we ask. I do not wish to waste the time of the House, and therefore justmove the amendment.

I appreciate the statement made by the hon. member that they are anxious to help to get this Bill through, but there are certain points in connection with the amendments they are putting forward which they regard as principle, but as I explained yesterday in the second reading, I cannot accept this amendment. If we continue this debate for a long time we will not ‘get any farther. I quite appreciate the fact that hon. members opposite are anxious to show that this is an amedment for which they stand, but our people are just as determined.

What is your objection?

I do not want to go into details. This thing was debated in the Select Committee and they drew up the clause as it is now and I have undertaken to accept it.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—55:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Bumside, D. C.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J, M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns G. C. S.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf F.’Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. G. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—31:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier P. J.

Stals, Á. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I referred yesterday to the general recommendation on page 19 of the report of the Select Committee to the effect that the Select Committee approves of the present practice of drawing up, the Voters’ Lists, namely that the names of the voters be given in groups. In the first place the names of European men are printed, then those of European women, and after that the names of the non-European voters. The committee approved of the existing practice, and further recommended that in future the names of women should come first, and then those of the men. The Minister yesterday stated that he was prepared to adopt the proposal of the Select Committee. I discussed the form of an amendment with the draftsmen, and they find it good to incorporate the decision of the Select Committee in that manner, into the Bill. The Minister will be able to accept it and to incorporate it in the Bill in that form.

In order to expedite matters, may I say I accept the principle because it is in this report, and it is a unamimous report, and I said yesterday I would accept it. I move—

I am satisfied with the assurance of the Minister.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I should like to have just one word changed in this clause, and I hope that the Minister will accept it. It affects Clause 17 (b). I want to change the word “person”, to “magistrate” in line 51. The aim of my motion is to maintain the existing practice. At present the election official delegates his power to the magistrate. I can remember no case where he delegated his power to anyone but a magistrate. We want to maintain the existing practice, and therefore I move the following amendment—

I will accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I should like to move an amendment which I discussed with the official and I hope that the Minister will accept it. As the Bill stands now the European voter must give notice when he moves from one constituency to another. Within the stipulated period he must give notice of his having moved to another constituency. In the case of a European that is the only information we expect or which is required, because a European person over the age of 21 is entitled to vote, and we do not want to know any more than that. We however require more information from a coloured voter. When the coloured voter leaves constituency “A” to go to constituency “B”, that is not enough information to enable the officials to determine whether he will be entitled to vote in the new constituency, because he must inhabit a house worth more than £75 or earn wages of more than £50. That may perhaps have been his position in the old constituency, but when he goes to live in the new constituency we do not know whether he fulfils those qualifications, and we must therefore receive information to ascertain whether he has those qualifications or not. The European must say that he goes to another constituency, but in the Bill it was unfortunately not recognised that in the case of a coloured voter it is essential to have that additional information given to the official which is necessary in order to determine whether in the new constituency he is entitled to vote. Now I ask in my amendment only that, where a European must give this information to determine whether he is entitled to vote, the coloured voter, when he goes to a new constituency, must also notify the change, but that he should give a little more information. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because if he does not accept it, it will hinder the smooth working of the Act. I said yesterday that we should help each other to make the law such that everybody who is entitled to vote will have the opportunity to do so, and that nobody shall vote who is not entitled to. I now direct an appeal to the Minister to assist us in this direction so that the coloured voters will also give the information which will enable the official to determine whether on going from one constituency to another they are still entitled to vote. It seems to be a necessary suggestion to make at this stage.

It seems as if it is consequential.

Yes, the hon. member says that it is practically a consequential amendment. I therefore move the amendment as follows—

1. (2) Every electoral officer for an area in which there is a division for which a Voters’ List of non-Europeans has been prepared shall in the month of January of each year by notice in writing require every person whose name appears upon that list to furnish on the prescribed form within the period (not being less than ten days) specified in the notice, the prescribed particulars as to his qualification by residence and qualification by reason of property, salary, wages or income.

I consulted the Department and they agree that nowhere in the Bill does it appear that coloured voters must give this information and therefore I ask in my amendment that the information should be given. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment seriously.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. This is a question that was thrashed out in the Select Committee, which divided, and it was defeated by 6 votes to 3. Here again the hon. member ought to be entitled to record his view, but no useful purpose will be served in dealing with the matter. The hon. member ought to be content with dividing on it.

May I then just say that I very much regret that the Minister will not accept the amendment, and I think I should state clearly to the House what we are now going to divide on. A European voter must give details of his qualifications in order that it may be determined whether he is entitled to vote, but the coloured voter will not be required to give that necessary information when he departs from one constituency to go to another, in order to decide whether he is entitled to vote or not. It is just as well that we should clearly understand what we are going to divide on. A difference of opinion in the Select Committee is not always a true reflection of the difference of opinion in this House, and the decision of the Select Committee does not always represent the decision of the Minister. I regret that the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, just because the Select Committee voted against it.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T.

Naudé and P. O.

Sauer.

Noes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson. H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann. K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B.

Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

This is our second last amendment and we hope that the Minister will be kindhearted as regards these last two amendments. I really feel that the Minister will meet us here because we adopted such a reasonable attitude. Clause 40 provides that the Voters’ Roll should be drawn up in serial numbers— European women,… European men and coloureds. If the constituency has 7,000 voters it will be from No. 1 to No. 7,000. The clause now provides that if the Minister thinks fit he can decide that certain numbers should vote at certain polling booths. That is optional. That is the postion today. The Minister can elect whether he will let certain people vote at certain polling stations. The only difference is this. The law today provides that if the Minister likes he can let European women vote at a different polling station from those where European men and coloureds vote. Under Clause 40, as it now stands, the Minister can determine that the European women and men can vote separately, and coloureds at a separate polling station. He can order European men and women to vote at one polling station and coloureds at another polling station, but it is optional. I want to repeat the point. Clause 40 now enables the Minister to determine or to direct that European women must vote separately and that the European men and coloureds must still vote together.

Or also separately.

Or also separately. He can still today let the European men and coloureds vote together, and European women separately. In our amendment we ask just this, that where the Minister thinks fit that there should be more than one polling station, he should direct that European men and women should vote at one polling station and coloureds at another. Really I cannot imagine a more reasonable suggestion. We do not say that the Minister must direct that at each polling station Europeans should vote on one side and coloureds on the other side, but our amendment says that when he directs that there should be separate polling stations, then the Europeans should vote at one polling station and coloureds at another, and I should like to appeal to this House and ask hon. members to support the amendment because it appears to me to be a very reasonable request. The Minister has the right to do so, but he is not always there. There may be another Minister who may say: “No I want to let the European men and coloureds vote together still”. Come, let us put this in the Act. It seems to me that the large majority of the population, if they could be here, would say it is right, if the Minister should direct that there should be separate polling stations, that Europeans should vote at one polling station and coloureds at another. I direct an appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. I move—

I want to say that I do appreciate the hearty co-operation I am getting from the Opposition, but there are two or three things in connection with this Bill that the Opposition feel very strong upon and that is one of them. This matter was discussed in the Select Committee and they came to a decision on the point.

Do you not feel, as Minister, that they should vote at separate booths?

I do not feel that I should express an opinion. The position is that the amendment which appears inserted in the Bill is a Select Committee amendment.

By a majority vote.

Yes, but they went into it very thoroughly. Power is given to the Minister to have separate polling booths. I do not have to say that there will be no possible chance of women mixing with coloured people That is the action which one has taken and I would ask the hon. member, although he feels that he must have a division on it, to take it as he has done on the others. I do appreciate the action of the Opposition to get this Bill on the Statute Book, but on these points, as far as colour is concerned we will get nowhere if we proceed further with it.

May I just refer the hon. Minister to this. Hon. members may perhaps think that there was much difference of opinion on the Select Committee. If one compares the original Bill with the one which is now before the Commitee, one will find an appreciable number of amendments there of which no mention is made in the report of the Select Committee. They were amendments about which we were agreed after consultation, and therefore no mention is made of them in the report of the Select Committee. We try to make the Bill as efficient as possible.

1 have already stated that the Select Committee improved the Bill appreciably.

I know the Minister agrees with me and I also agree with him, but there are also instances in this report which indicate that certain things were unanimously adopted at the preliminary discussion, but afterwards members of the Committee made a suggestion, and voting ensued. Originally, for example, in connection with Clause 3 there was general agreement during the preliminary discussion. Later it was put and a vote was taken on it. I only mention that as a reason why I think that the hon. Minister should not just say: “Because the Select Committee did this in the final stage, therefore I think they are right.” He cannot mention that as a reason. The hon. Minister knows that at a Select Committee, especially a Select Committee of this nature, where we had to deal with very complicated and voluminous legislation, the Select Committee did not have much time at its disposal. We had to finish the work, and I want to direct another appeal to the Minister and ask him whether he is not able to accept this amendment in the spirit in which the whole discussion was held. The hon. Minister says that he does not wish to express his personal opinion about this, but surely that is unreasonable. I think the hon. Minister can at least go as far as we have asked him to go. There are not many cases; I am told that there are only 40 odd cases where in the past different polling stations were ordered in practice. Thus, when the Minister deter mines that there should be such separate polling stations, it will probably not be more than 40 odd. The administrative portion of it will therefore not be made more difficult.

It is possible in practice.

In practice there were originally only 40 odd cases. The Minister retains the power. There will perhaps again be just 40 odd, and in those cases he may deem it advisable that the division should take place. All we ask is this; when he determines that in a constituency there should be more than one polling station, he should, instead of letting the European women vote on one side and the European men and the coloured at another station put all the Europeans, men and women, together, and let the coloureds vote at a separate polling station.

He can do that.

He can do it, but who says he will?

He can do it, bur we do not know who will be the Minister of the Interior tomorrow or the day after, and the Minister’s successor may refuse to do it. I should like to have a statement from the Minister now. I think his personal opinion is also relevant on this point.

Have you lost all hope of sitting here?

The hon. Minister laughs, but there will be an election before that happens, and at that very election we want people to vote separately. I now press this point, and before we finish with this clause I wish to ask the Minister to tell the House frankly what he is going to do. I should like to have a statement from him as to what his policy will be in practice, and how he will apply the provisions of the clause in practice.

I think we have progressed very far. We… now have a prophesy from the other side that after the next election they will no longer govern the country. I can only say that I do not think they are false prophets as far as that is concerned. But I wish to return to the merits of the matter. It was said by way of interjection—and the Minister also adopts that point of view—that power is given to him in the Bill to have separate polling stations, and that satisfies hon. members opposite 100 per cent. I just want to remind hon. members that the power is also given to the Minister of Railways to have separate coaches on the railways, but the Minister makes no use of that power. It therefore does not help just to have the power. That Act would be good if this side of the House governed the country, but if that side is in power’ the Act is not so good, because they make no use of their power, and therefore it is necessary that the Minister should lend an ear to the pleas and accept this amendment.

I should also like to make an appeal to the Minister again to give this matter his earnest attention. It has frequently been our experience in this House when this question of the coloured people has come under discussion that even the Prime Minister had stood up and expressed himself in this House in favour of the principle of separation. I recall that the Prime Minister, before he went overseas, expressed his opinion on this subject in the House. We ask that the Minister should now clinch this by legislation and prove to the world that that party stands for separation. But as soon as we come to that stage they will not budge. We state this morning to hon. members opposite and to the hon. Minister that they have their opportunity to prove to South Africa today that they are in favour of separation. Today we can lay this down in the Bill, and if the Minister rejects this amendment and if he has not the courage to stand up and say what his policy is in this matter, the Government must not expect that we on this side of the House will worry ourselves any further about any assurances they may give in regard to separation, because they are not sincere. When the time comes to apply the test hon. members opposite remain perfectly quiet, they then are immovable. Accordingly I should like once again to make an urgent appeal to the Minister to take this matter into consideration and to listen to our representations.

I think this matter affects us very deeply, but you get these large crowds at the polling stations. If there is a small group then there is only one polling booth. We do not want to urge that there should be more polling booths than are necessary, but in a small town in the platteland you will have two polling booths, one for the women and another for the European men and the coloureds. Consequently it appears so natural and so just and proper that seeing there are these two booths that the European men and women should vote at the one booth and the coloureds at the other. That appears the natural thing to do. Why then are they going to institute this provision that a small group of women will have to vote on the one side while the European men and the coloureds should vote at the other box. I say that on the platteland especially it would be very convenient for us, that things will not be so offensive, if that principle of separation is applied there. Here in the towns it does not matter so much because there will always be three ballot boxes, but in the platteland, generally speaking, I think it will be very objectionable if European men and coloureds have to vote together, and I do not think it is too late for the Minister to drop that small point and accept our amendment.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux. J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Marwick. J. S.

Moll, A. MMolteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 49,

I will reconsider this and will move an amendment in the Report Stage, if necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 50,

I should like to move the following amendment—

The clause as it stands is aimed at the Vierkleur. We must not forget that to us as Afrikaners the Vierkleur represents the big events in the history of our Afrikaner nation. It is also the symbol of our hopes for the future, the ideals of our Afrikaner nation and it binds us to an inestimable treasury of great deeds, of heroic figures and exalted ideals. This is a matter that is controlled for our Afrikaner nation by the highest law, namely, the law of our conscience. This is the last amendment we are going to put on this side of the House, and I would like to make another appeal to the Minister to accept it. The Minister might just as well insert a clause in the Bill prohibiting the tide to rise in the ocean. When he inserts a clause such as this in the Act it will have the same effect. Our Afrikaner people will simply take no notice of this clause. It will only cause ugly and unnecessary scenes. I myself will not allow myself to be bound by this clause in any circumstances. I shall simply have to break the law. I say it will lead to unnecessary unpleasantness, and I really hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

This clause, I have no hesitation in saying, has my support, because I have seen flags used in the manner in which they should not have been used.

Are you referring to the hammer and sickle.

It may be that, but I am thinking of the Union Jack and the Union Flag which at some of these elections in the towns where I have been were used in a manner in which they should not have been used. The Select Committee, in putting in this clause, were evidently influenced by the fact that they knew I was in favour of it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 25th May.

I want to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for 30 minutes. Last year I framed an indictment against the Minister on account of his handling of the portfolio of Justice, and there is no doubt that the present Minister in the years he has been a Minister, has committed very serious blunders, blunders which have even upset his own side and which have been taken amiss by various sections in the country. I think of his rash deed in reprieving the British soldier, Smith, who committed a murder in Durban; I think of the book he banned about the Roman Church and how he confiscated it from the parsonages of Afrikaans ministers. And so there are many other matters which one could quote. I want to say immediately that there is one case which we are desirous of dealing with, namely the Minister’s action in connection with the attack on Mr. Mentz, the member for Westdene, but owing to the fact that the case is still before the Appeal Court and therefore is sub Judice, we cannot discuss it today. We hope that there will be a further opportunity of discussing it. The present Minister’s administration as Minister of Justice has been characterised by injustice and suppression, by wrongful actions and by bias. In the past we have often dealt with the question of internments. I will not go into the matter again today, but I just want to remind the committee that throughout the years we have accussed the Minister of unjustly interning a number of people on the grounds of accusations which were totally unfounded. Time and time again this has been denied. But we had the case of Arndt Bros at Bloemfontein. It was then said that that was the only example we could mention. This year we have found an ally in the Minister of the Interior who declared in the hearing of the whole House that a number of civil servants were interned without any grounds whatsoever. The Minister of the Interior, when he was attacked by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) for promoting certain civil servants who were interned, replied—and he mentioned the names of Strobos, Potgieter and Zondagh— that they had been wrongfully interned and that the accusations against them were totally unfounded. He himself declared here in the House that they had been given promotion afterwards because the charge against them was completely unfounded. That we had from the mouth of a Minister. Our accusations against the Minister of Justice and our allegations are becoming more and more true and confirmed and even a Minister has substantiated our allegations. We now know of this number of cases, but how many other cases are there where people have been innocently interned? We have already asked over and over again what the Government has done and is still doing against those who have given false evidence. What becomes of the people who have made charges against honest citizens, against civil servants, while the Minister of the Interior admits himself that the accusations were false and unfounded? What does the Government intend doing with these people? Does it intend to allow them to wander about freely? Does it intend to let the matter rest there, namely that false evidence has been given against these people as a result of which they have had to suffer? Does the Minister not intend to take any steps? The war is now over, and we demand that the Minister should take action against the people who have given false evidence and who have committed perjury. I can quote my own case, where false declarations were made against me, where false minutes were produced to the effect that I was supposed to have participated in a subversive movement, a movement which I have never heard of in my life before. It was alleged that I had attended a secret meeting at Bloemfontein in connection with subversive activities whereas I was not near Bloemfontein when the meeting was to have taken place. I want to know what the Government is doing with such people. The Government had a large number of sleuthhounds who produced false evidence against honest citizens, and the Government is protecting them. I hope that steps will be taken against these sleuth-hounds and that their names will be made known so that we can know who they are. We cannot allow the matter to rest there. We have experienced a period of injustice and suppression and people have been prosecuted on false evidence. The Minister cannot leave the matter there. As regards internment the Minister declared a few days ago that all Union nationals have been released, except those who they think were concerned in the attack on Mr. Mentz. I would like to know from the Minister what he has done with the people who, according to his assertion, had a hand, in their opinion, in the murder of Louis Nel. Have they been released? Last year the Minister said that they had certain people in custody whom they were convinced were concerned in the murder of Nel. I would like to know whether this is so, whether the people have been interned or whether they have been released. Is the Minister’s statement correct that all Union nationals have been released, except those who they think were concerned in the attack on Mr. Mentz? As the war in Europe is now at an end, I want to make a further request to the Minister, namely that he should take immediate steps to exempt those who were interned from all the restrictions which are still placed on their movements today. In many cases these people have still to make application to their magistrate and the magistrate has to serve a report on them and they are subject to restrictions. I want to ask the Minister to exempt these people. He can no longer subject these people to such restrictions. Many of them have for a long time been out of the camps, but are restricted to certain areas, or other restrictions have been imposed on them which hinder them from making a livelihood. They do not obtain an allowance from the Government and are hampered from earning a livelihood.

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

I was practically finished with the question of internments. I would just like to say that one is perplexed in this difficult period at the Government’s attitude towards certain movements and organisations which have been declared to be subversive organisations, while others again are not so declared. We have seen that the Ossewa-Brandwag has been declared a subversive organisation. But the Commuist movement carries on with its incitement and agitation in the country without being declared a subversive oganisation. I will come back to this matter at a later stage. We also have the Grey Shrits. For a long time during the war that organisation was not declared a subversive organisation, but towards the end of the war the Government interned the leader of that organisation, Mr. Weichardt. Take for instance the Ossewa-Brandwag. I am only quoting facts, and I would like to have an explanation. The Government declared the Ossewa-Brandwag to be a subversive organisation, but when the 1943 election took place a candidate was appointed by the Ossewa-Brandwag in Beaufort West and the chief secretary of the Government Party sent a telegram to the Government candidate to the effect that he should stand back in favour of the Ossewa-Brandwag candidate, against the common enemy. I see that the Acting Prime Minister is smiling. It is ludicrous. This organisation has been declared a subversive organisation. The members of the organisation are treated as people who commit sabotage, but we find that the Government’s candidate was asked to stand back in favour of that organisation’s candidate, and then against a Party which does not indulge in any subversive activities. How can the Government adopt such a false attitude—we cannot call it otherwise—that it should declare an organisation to be a subversive organisation whereas its own candidate had to stand back for that organisation’s candidate. We as a Parliament would like to have an explanation of the Government’s attitude. This matter has been mentioned time and again in the House, but as yet no Minister has clarified the position or tried to defend it. This period of administration by the present Minister of Justice has been characterised by an arbitrary and general violation and infringement of the law of the land, so that in many respects contempt has been shown for the law in the country. The Government has not only governed by the law, but also by regulations. Numbers of regulations have been promulgated which have given rise to new crimes and infringements. All sorts of things have been declared to be infringements. But at the same time the Government has shut its eyes to the violation of laws and regulations, and it has even encouraged it. In the last few years it has become a national sport to evade the Government’s legislation and regulations. It has become a huge joke if the Governments regulations can be dodged. I blame the Government for having promulgated certain regulations, but I blame it still more for, where it has certain regulations and Acts in the Statute Book, regarding those regulations and Acts as a dead letter and simply allowing those regulaitons to be publicly violated day after day. I say that the regulations have been violated at will, and sometimes these violations are even encouraged. I will quote a few examples. Take the case of lotteries. The law is transgressed. Lotteries are held and even officials went ahead openly in encouraging lotteries in connection with the war. We find announcements in that connection in the newspapers, they are publicly carried on in the street. There have been numbers of lotteries held for war funds and all this they have shut their eyes to. The Government is wrong in encouraging this if its own laws are being transgressed. If it allows this, then it should have the courage of its convictions and repeal that Act. The next point is the question of standing drinks. The Government came along with a some what stupid regulation that nobody could stand another a drink in a public bar. For a few monts that regulation was carried out in a manner. But thereafter it was simply not takën into account any longer. It is still in force and has not been repealed. It is still posted up in public bars but nevertheless it is done everywhere. The law is simply violated and such a thing as obedience to this regulation no longer exists. The Government also promulgated regulations as regards the sale of flour. But everyhere in the shops sieves are sold. It has even become a profitable industry in the country to make small sieves with which people can sift the flour. According to the regulation people are now allowed to use sifted flour, but day after day this regulation is gaily transgressed. Take the question of the control of pertol. This is violated the whole day long. Then we also have meat control. And how gaily are those regulations not transgressed? Even members of Parliament appear in court, and it is regarded as a huge joke. What member of this House can say today that he has not at one time or another transgressed one of the Government regulations? Everyone does it throughout the country. The regulations are deliberately and cheerfully transgressed. As I said, it has become a national sport. There are regulations in connection with all kinds of things. As a result a black market has originated and it continues gaily. It is known to Ministers and members throughout the country how the black market functions. Take the case of petrol. I do not know whether it is still the case, but a year ago I was told that there was a place in Johannesburg where you could get as many petrol coupons as you wanted, if you were willing to pay sixpence for a coupon.

And everybody knows it except the Minister of Justice.

Yes, everyone knows it except the Minister of Justice.

Where is that place?

I think you know very well where it is!

Everyone makes fun of the Government’s regulations and of transgressing them. One could go on giving a long list of things which are allowed daý after day and which constitute a violation of the regulations. People no longer hesitate to transgress the regulations and the law. I am thinking of the outcome of all this. We had a law-abiding people in South Africa who were very keen on obeying the law. But I am afraid that in this manner we have brought about a contempt for the law and regulations in the country, the same position which existed in connection with the prohibition on drink in America, where it became a national sport to violate the law. What was the result of that? It did not only remain the case with the prohibition on drink, but in many other cases as well the people formed a contempt for the law of the country, with the result that transgression of the law took place on a large scale. I fear that here in South Africa we have also reached the stage when contempt is shown for the law, and reason for this is the number of Government regulations, the transgressions of which they simply shut their eyes to. But the most serious of all is what I am about to mention, namely, that the Government shuts its eyes to the fact that feelings are being stirred up in the country and that hostility between the various sections of the population is being accomplished by Communists and communstic agitators. They are given a free hand to incite as much as they want to, particularly non-Europeans against Europeans and also against the authority of the Government. The Minister of Justice is the patron of some of the communistic organisations. When last year a huge procession was held through the streets of Cape Town with large inflammatory banners, he sent a telegram saying “I wish you all success”. I ask whether the Minister should do such a thing, when he knows how these people are stirring up feeling. Never in the past few years when there has been any demonstration or congress for Afrikaans culture matters, have I seen that the Minister has sent a telegram, “I wish you all success”. But to the Communists he sends such telegrams. They are allowed to incite people. In practically every newspaper one reads reports of incitement. On the Rand recently there was a demonstration of some 10,000 people, mostly non-Europeans, and Europeans together with non-Europeans climbed on to a soap box or whatever it was and people were incited against the authority of the Government and of the European. They said that the war was now over, but that their war was only beginning. What do they mean by that? They attack Europeans, Malan and Pirow and others. What do they say? “They must be destroyed for the colour bar must be destroyed, the colour bar must disappear”. They say that their freedom is theirs for the taking, but that they will not obtain it unless they fight for it. “The time of words is past, the time for action has arrived”. This is what the non-Europeans said there and they were supported by Europeans. But the Government remains passive.

Which newspaper is that out of?

The Minister may perhaps be pleased when this side of the House is attacked, but now I will read what they have to say of the Government side. I may say that I deplore it just as much. Last year a meeting of the Communist Party was held in the Woodstock Town Hall, and it was said—

An Englishman, an Afrikaner, a native and a Jew spoke. They said—

A native by the name of Edwin Mofutsanyana spoke about the Minister of Native Affairs, and this is what he said—

Maybe the Minister of Justice will also send him a telegram, “I wish you all success”. I deplore this just as strongly as I do the attacks made upon us, but the manner in which the natives are allowed to express themselves against the Government of the country is far-reaching and it is time that we put a stop to it. We feel that it is an extremely serious matter, and we demand efficient action against this sort of incitement, particularly of the non-Europeans. The hon. Minister made a statement recently—he is an important man outside— to the effect that after the war he is going to take action against subversive movements in the same way as during the war years. I want to ask him whether he intends taking just as strong a stand against the Communists or is he going to wish them further success? Here in Cape Town we have the position that skollies are constantly committing assaults on our trams in certain neighbourhoods. The situation is alarming, crime is assuming serious proportions, and the Minister of Justice has allowed our police force to be depleted, so that there are almost 2,000 police short. The Minister should have ensured that the acts of violence were suppressed, but the Minister failed in his duty and sent the police overseas who were needed to maintain law and order. In the report of the Chief of Police there is a serious complaint as regards the shortage of police and the alarming increase in crime. The Minister has failed in his task to ensure at this stage that law and order are maintained. He has allowed regulations to be promulgated at random which are looked upon with contempt by the public. Regulations have been framed hastily and without consideration, civil freedom has been unnecessarily curtailed by all kinds of unnecessary restrictions and punitive measures, the Government has not always acted in an unbiased manner, the Government has allowed matters to get out of hand and lawlessness to take its course, the police force has been weakened and the public are not given effective protection, the Government allows agitators and illegal organisations and even encourages them, and the Government allows natives and coloureds to be incited, which is a great danger to South Africa. With a blind eye the Government allows all these things to happen and the Minister adopts an indifferent attitude, except towards his brother Afrikaners whom he is very quick to prosecute, and, as the Minister of the Interior said, he allows Afrikaners to be detained and interned on false and unfounded reasons and he does not afford them the rights which an ordinary criminal enjoys. We ask what the Minister’s line of action is going to be in the future, when he says that he intends following the same course as he has done during the war. What is his policy going to be? We see the difficulties which are being experienced overseas, in France, in Italy and in Belgium, how Communism is rearing its head and how they are becoming afraid of that danger. In South Africa we have far more reason to be on the alert and to guard against a disturbance of the relationship, the peaceful relationship between Europeans, and non-Europeans. It is a perilous matter for us as a European nation, but the Minister takes not notice of these things. Does he intend adopting the same attitude as in the past and ranging himself on the side of the communists? Is he going to wish them success and act as their patron? Or does he intend taking steps? Long ago a warning was issued against this danger. The hon. Minister need not frame an act. We have the Act of 1930. I have Hansard here to indicate how it was specially framed against communistic agitation. Mr. Pirow was the then Minister of Justice and he said that he had framed the Act with a view to combating communistic incitement, for even at that time it was serious. The speeches of the Prime Minister of today, the then Leader of the Opposition, have been quoted to support that step, and it was pointed out that he said that we ought to prevent a strong communistic movement from originating among the natives. He urged that legislation should be framed and the then Minister of Justice handed in a Bill. The legislation is there and it is unnecessary to promulgate regulations. Provision has been made. The Act is there, but it is simply not executed. To retain the so-called friendship with Joseph Stalin, they have simply allowed the followers of Stalin to go their own way. We have learned that at the demonstrations in Johannesburg there were hundreds of flags, but hardly a Union Flag or a Union Jack. There was only the Red Flag with the hammer and the sickle. They were all followers of Joseph Stalin all communists. The Government takes no notice of all this, and allows matters to develop. We have witnessed before in history that the Prime Minister of today—in 1920 and 1921 when he was also Prime Minister— allowed matters to develop to such a pitch that eventually bloodshed and a bloody revolution came to pass, which cost many human lives.

At that time you supported the Red Flag.

We are issuing a warning today against that same bloodshed. If it is allowed that tens of thousands of natives and coloureds march through the streets of Johannesburg uttering these cries, if incitement is allowed to take place everywhere, then eventaully bloodshed will be the outcome in the country. We as a Party stand for efficient action being taken to combat this incitement, and we are in favour of stronger execution of the laws, and if the laws are not strong enough, stronger laws must be made. We want peace in the country, and we want the coloureds and natives to retain their esteem for the Europeans, and that the agitators, be they Europeans or coloureds, should be punished and action taken against them. The public outside feel the injustice of this Minister’s action in throwing his brother Afrikaners into goal who have perhaps talked out of their turn somewhat, whereas those agitators are allowed to continue and stir up trouble, and the Minister still sends them a telegram “I wish you all success.”

I should like to take a little further the matter that was broached by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), namely the subject of the increase of communist propaganda in South Africa, more particularly amongst native and coloured people. I believe I am entitled to speak on this matter because as far back as the 2nd August, 1937, when I returned to South Africa, I sounded a grave warning in connection with communist propaganda, and I warned that Communism in South’ Africa should be extirpated root and branch and that there should be no dawdling over it. Now I want to take the Minister back to the 12th February, 1943. On that occasion a motion was introduced by me on behalf of this side of the House on the question of Communism and communistic propaganda in our country. The Minister replied to the debate and the standpoint he took up was this. He said—

He said further—

Finally he asserted—

He was followed by the Minister of the Interior, who is today Minister of Welfare, and that Minister spoke on the same lines, saying—

That was in 1943. Those were in the nice days when Communist Soviet Russia was still one of the Allies. In those days it was resented if any member on this side of the House said anything that could be regarded as a reflection on Soviet Russia. What is the position today? We are now in 1945. The war is over and for belligerent purposes the alliance has come to an end. What is the position today? We have the curious position that the same people who in 1943 when this motion was proposed rose one after the other to defend Russia, these people, just the same way as their newspapers outside, are extremely anxious about the position in Europe as a result of the tremendous power that Soviet Russia has got into its hands. A few hon. members on the other side are laughing. I shall now read to them an article that appeared in the “Argus” three days ago. They all read the “Argus” and believe in that newspaper.

You believe in the “Kruithoring”.

They believe in the “Argus”. In the “Argus” an article appeared under the headline “In troubled Europé”. It deals first with the position that has arisen in Europe and the steps that Russia has taken, and then it states regarding the Soviet—

That is not ten or twelve years ago but three days ago, when one of their leading newspapers in South Africa adopted the attitude of uttering a warning against those things regarding which we sounded a warning in the past.

The devil is now quoting scripture.

I take hon. members back to the 12th February, 1943. I then said what I am now going to read out, and then hon. members on the other side laughed.

We are still laughing.

I challenge the hon. member to laugh over what I am now going to read. I said—

Let the hon. member laugh now. A year later their leader, the present Prime Minister, stood up before a gathering of British members of Parliament and said—

He further said—

The hon. member no longer laughs. They cannot laugh. This is proof that the standpoint we adopted right throughout on the question of Communism and the danger of Communism was justified.

What did they do to stop it?

We were not in power. Hon. members on the other side were in power and they should have done something to stop it, and that was why we stood up and pleaded for that. They have been in authority for years. What have they done to ward off the danger? We sounded a warning against it. Now they are uneasy their newspapers are uneasy. This article appeared only this week in the “Argus” and a similar article appeared in the “Cape Times”. It is almost incredible that even the “Cape Times”, which only a month ago said they could not understand the mysterious disapproval of a certain type of people of Soviet Russia, that that same “Cape Times” last week gave a warning about the attitude of Russia. Possibly hon. members noticed last night a report from S.A.P.A. about what is going on in Rumania and Bulgaria and Hungary where they liquidated 2,000 professors and other intellectuals. Things are going on there which by comparison put Buchenwald entirely in the shade. Hon. members on the other side should read that report. It is in their own paper. They will therefore believe it.

What has this to do with the vote?

When we observe the position in Europe and read the articles concerning it, including this article which describes the political system the communists have instituted, I maintain we have every cause to be nervous and apprehensive about the future of South Africa where we have only 2,000 000 Europeans against 8,000,000 non-Europeans in the country. As a result of the alliance with Russia and the refusal of the Minister to take action in the past there has, as a result of the incitement of coloureds and natives by the communists, set in a deterioration in the relationship between the European and non-European. [Time limit.]

I wish to make a few remarks in connection with a matter which affects a certain section of the population. It is stated on good authority that crime is on the increase in the Union. When we read our daily papers we find there is an epidemic of crime in the larger towns, and in some cases it is carried out by organised gangs and the police are unable to deal with these gangs. It seems to me this is due to the absence of many members of the police force ….

May I remind the hon. member there is a vote “Police”?

I just mentioned that, I am coming to another matter. What is the cause of this epidemic of theft and crime? Is it poverty? Is it unemployment? Or is it some other matter? After investigating the position I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of our crime is due to facilities to obtain drink. From statistics I find that two years ago no fewer than 55,500 natives were charged with crimes of which 95 per cent. were associated with drink. That is very serious indeed. The drink question today is extremely serious and seems to be growing worse daily amongst a certain section of the community. It appears that in this part of the country shebeens are on the increase; in the Eastern Province we have orgies of beer drinking; and from statements in the Press it appears there is a great deal of boot-legging going on in the district of Namaqualand. I find that at the last meeting of the Licensing Board in Namaqualand the magistrate there drew attention to the fact that on secret investigation it was discovered that the number of bottles of liquor supplied to the coloured people in one year, apart from those obtained by special permit, exceeded 200,000. That is a very serious position when we consider that these people were able to obtain 200,000 bottles of wine in the one year. According to newspaper reports a tremendous trade is going on in that country by boot-leggers who supply illicit liquor to the natives working in that district. I remember in 1943 the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact, when speaking on the drink question, that the trade and the general public do all within their power to counteract the evils associated with drinking. I believe the trade have done a good deal. Looking through the report of the Director of Prisons I find that more persons were admitted to penal institutions during 1943 than ever before, the actual total being 207,196, an increase of 7.5 per cent. practically over the previous year. But 175,700 were liquor convictions. The result was that during the year penal institutions could not accommodate the number of persons who were convicted. The Secretary for Justice said some years ago that 75 per cent. of all crimes were attributed to liquor, so the House will agree with me that the question is a serious one and one that calls for drastic action.

I hope the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) will lend me his ear. He talks about what happened in 1936. Will he tell the House whether it is correct or not that when he was representing South Africa he asked the other ambassadors representing this country to work hard so that Russia should be a member of the League of Nations.

No, I deny it. You are wrong as usual.

No, you did.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member gave an explanation and that hon. member does not accept it.

The hon. member denies it, but Dr. Van Broekhuizen himself said that he did not trust Russia.

On a point of explanation I absolutely deny every word of what the hon. member of Hospital (Mr. Barlow) says. If Dr. Van Broekhuizen told you that he was telling a deliberate untruth.

Under the rules of order I must accept that. Dr. Van Broekhuizen is a member of your Party and you sent him overseas. It is a strange thing that he should tell this story.

And a story it is.

It is only in recent years that the hon. member has become so antiStalin and anti-Italian. I just want to deal for a few minutes with the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). I want to congratulate the Minister on the patience he has shown during this extraordinarily difficult period in which he was Minister of Justice. There have been times during that period when the Minister’s life has been in danger, when he has had to be protected by the police.

Has the Minister of Finance been after him?

There is not a single young man who has been interned whose family has not come to him to thank him for what he has done.

Rubbish.

I have got more men out of the internment camp than any member opposite. Let any of them give me the names of five men whom they got out. Let them produce the lists they have signed standing good for those men.

How many did you have interned?

That is a cheap remark. Hon. members can go to Sir Theodore Truter and ask him for the names of any man I had interned. Let me go further. When the Ossewa-Brandwag Commandant-General asked the newspapers to assist him to subscribe funds to assist the families of men in the internment camps the Nationalist Party point-blank refused to publish a single advertisement. £34,000 has been subscribed and I challenge any man opposite to show that he ever gave £1. They fought against the O.B. Fund and did not subscribe a penny. They are using the internment camps as they used the war, for purely political purposes. Now, frightened of Commandant-General Van Rensburg ….

Your friend.

Yes, my friend, although I do not agree with him. He used to grow up before me. His father was a good man in the old Republic. Why should he not be my friend? I totally disagree with his outlook and his policy, but as a man he is my friend. We are so friendly that I am the only man in this House who has had his office bombed twice. Once at Bloemfontein and once at Johannesburg they threw a bomb in my office. Let the friendship remain on that basis. Frightened of what is going on in their own constituencies they want to hurry on the Session of Parliament and they now attack Van Rensburg. Will they tell me of one thing that the Minister has done against them? Will they tell me that it is the Communists who took my hon. friend over there out of his house and thrashed him? Was it the Communists who blew up the Benoni Post Office and who broke into Sir Theodore Truter’s house to try to steal certain documents?

Ask the Minister of Justice that.

The Communists have done an enormous amount in Johannesburg at night in the civilian guard to protect the homes of Nationalists. [Laughter.] The member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) who always reminds me of the disappearing grin of “Alice in Wonderland”, whose grin disappeared into the trees, has he ever done anything in this wär to protect the property of fellow Nationalists? Has he gone out at night like the Communists to protect the property of Nationalists. He has taken advantage of the fact that these people are away, and the only trouble that has been made during this war has been made by the people who support the Nationalist Party. [Time limit].

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has already brought to light a whole series of sins committed by the Minister of Justice, and for my part I should like to supplement those accusations with which he indicted the Minister. Today I wish to advance a matter of urgent importance, a matter affecting the policy of the Minister of Justice in reference to the appointment of certain individuals on boards for which he is responsible; and then I should like to dicuss the policy of the Minister in a practical way in reference to the appointment of individuals on the Liquor Licensing Board of Brakpan. The charges I am bringing against the Minister are: (1) That he is misusing the powers he enjoys as Minister of Justice; (2) that he is interfering with justice in a disastrous manner; (3) that the appointments he is making are political appointments. In the past I have put questions to the Minister in reference to these matters. I have asked the Minister whether in August or September last year the Municipality of Brankpan were invited to nominate members for the Liquor Licensing Board of Brakpan, whether the town council made recommendations, who the individuals were they recommended, and whether the Minister accepted those recommendations, if not why not? I should like in the first place to inform the House of the answers the Minister gave. In the first place his answer was this: Yes, the Municipality of Brakpan did make recommendations. His reply to the second question was they recommended Joseph Freel and Johannes Petrus Vorster. The third question was whether the Minister appointed these persons, and if not why not. The Minister’s reply was that Joseph Freel was appointed on his own recommendation, and this despite the Minister’s own reply that Freel was recommended by the Town Council of Brakpan. Furthermore the Minister replied that Johannes Petrus Vorster was not appointed, and he added to that—I am not prepared to disclose my reasons for refusing to appoint him. Why did the Minister not say why he refused to make this appointment? This is in the interests of the public of Brakpan. What is behind it all? Furthermore, the Minister was asked by me whether persons were appointed who were not recommended by the Town Council of Brakpan. He said: Yes, Mr. Rabie, who served for 12 years as, member of the Liquor Licensing Board, an exemplary man in Brakpan, has not been re-appointed. Vorster was also not appointed by him. But in Rabie’s place he appointed a certain Summerson, and in lieu of Vorster he appointed a certain James Douglas Mitchell, as the Minister of Justice has said, on his own recommendation. Apparently he knows all the people right through the country so that he can appoint them on their own recommendation. I now want to go a little further. The Minister has taken this step in opposition to the wishes of the Town Council of Brakpan who entered a unanimous protest against the Minister’s action.

They are all Nats.

Not only the Town Council of Brakpan but also the citizens who are so upset over this appointment of James Douglas Mitchell that they themselves organised a protest.

Nats again.

At the protest meeting a resolution was taken to send a deputation to the Minister. The Town Council itself sent Mr. Van der Walt and Mr. Freel and Messrs. Papenfus and Steenkamp were sent on behalf of the protesting public. They explained the whole matter to the Minister, all that was going on, and Mitchell’s record. The Minister said to this deputation: Look I am very grateful that you have placed all this information before me; I have not had it all at my disposal but now I can give you the assurance that I shall investigate the matter and remedy the injustice. What happened was just what I expected from the Minister—until now he has not budged.

There was no injustice.

I come now to the injustice that there was. This same James Douglas Mitchell was previously a member of the Brakpan Town Council. He was the mayor; he served on the Liquor Licensing Board. Applications were submitted for a bottle store licence, one of his brothers being amongst the applicants. And this highly placed official of Brakpan, James Douglas Mitchell, whom the Minister now wishes to appoint ’ to serve on the Liquor Licensing Board, sat as a judge to dispose of the application made by his brother. His own brother applied and he remained as a member of the Liquor Licensing Board to deal with that application. It seems very peculiar to me the way in which the Minister acts and how he virtually repudiates his own judge. I have before me the judgment of Judge Solomon in reference to James Douglas Mitchell. The Minister should understand that this judgment was given on the 25th January of last year. It was a case of Liebenberg and seven others versus the Brakpan Licensing Board as the first respondent, and George Allen Mitchell, the brother of James Douglas Mitchell, as the second respondent. In this case the judge in the course of his judgment criticised strongly James Douglas Mitchell.

The brother of the Mitchell who got the licence.

Yes, and on his recommendation. I want now to read out a few observations the judge made in the course of his judgment to indicate to the House the seriousness of this matter—

It is the same man. I read on—

Now we come to the second respondent—

This is the man the Minister knows so well that a few months later he re-appointed him to the Liquor Licensing Board. I read on—

This is a scandalous thing, and this is the man the Minister on his own recommendation appointed as in preference to an honourable man.

He is now deep in thought.

Yes, his conscience will make him reflect more deeply still. The judge went on to say—

The judge could not have expressed himself more strongly. I should like the Minister to remember that oh the 25th January of last year we had the judgment. In August or September of that year he asked the Town Council of Brakpan to furnish recommendations. In December he disapproved of the Town Council’s recommendations, and he appointed this person. What does the judge say further—

The Minister repudiated the judge by his apointment of James Douglas Mitchell. At the close of his judgment the judge said—

I think the first step the Minister took borders on being one of the biggest scandals imaginable. If it were Parliamentary to employ such language I would assert that it borders on corruption. Judge Solomon finds here that James Douglas Mitchell is an undesirable person to sit on the Licensing Board. He expressed himself in the strongest terms against Mitchell as a member of the Liquor Licensing Board, and immediately after that the Minister refuses to appoint men like Vorster and Rabie. But he appoints Mitchell despite the judgment.

He was right.

These are their methods. Can the Minister now stand up here and assert that he has not tampered with justice in a disastrous manner. Can he do this honestly? No, he cannot. Now the Minister in view of this scandal, should stand up and tell us the reason why Vorster and Rabie were turned down. I accuse the Minister of having made a political appointment, and I hope the Minister will give me a reassuring reply and not oblige me to state later why this is my opinion. I say that this is scandalous conduct on the part of the Minister of Justice, and that the inhabitants of Brakpan want to know what the position is. The Minister promised to go into the matter and to remedy the injustice. He has done nothing. I imagine what the Minister contemplates telling me is that he did not appoint Rabie because he is the sheriff. My retort to that is that Rabie served for 12 years on the Licensing Board as an honourable man, and throughout that period he was sheriff. So that is no excuse. If Rabie committed any offence let the Minister stand up and tell us. But the Minister has his knife into Mr. Vorster. Vorster is the mayor and because Vorster is a Nationalist and takes a leading part in the Nationalist Party the Minister has no time for him, and I say if the Minister can give me no other reason against an honourable man lkie Koos Vorster, apart from the fact that he is a Nationalist. He is a decent Afrikaner through and through. He is the mayor of Brakpan. The public of Brakpan are dissatisfied. They have recorded their protest. The Minister cannot say that there have been any protests in the town council against Vorster, but he has to tell the House that unanimous protests were made on account of his having appointed Summerson and James Douglas Mitchell. I hope that the Minister will now have the matter settled. The accusations I have made against him must stand until he can refute them, and I say that he cannot refute them. It is a matter that needs no further emphasising. During the rest of the time at my disposal I should like to associate myself with previous speakers on this side who had observations to offer in connection with Communism. I think it was two years ago when we discussed Communism in this House the Prime Minister rose in his place and represented that it was an innocent little thing, and that it had nothing to do with the Communism of Russia. Today the Party opposite acknowledges the danger of Communism. They see the danger, and those who do not perceive it are just those who stand for the communist ideal. I should now like the Minister to give me an answer to this question. In connection with the communist demonstration on May Day last year did he instruct the police of the Witwatersrand to give protection to the processions, or did he not? It seemed strange to me. Incidentally I was there. The police were obliged to accompany the communist procession. One of those officials said to me; I have been busy since seven o’clock, it is now 3 o’clock and we may not return until we have seen the natives back safe in the locations.

What is wrong with that?

My hon. friend asks what is wrong with that. I will tell him what is wrong with it. He should go to Johannesburg, and then he will see what is wrong.

If, the Minister did not do that you would have blamed him then as well should any trouble have arisen.

There are emergency regulations in the country that prohibit you from inciting the races against each other.

Yes.

That is what you are doing now.

What is the responsible Minister doing?

What is he doing?

If that is not incitement of the worst sort I do not know what is. I shall now quote to the Minister the words in a pamphlet that was circulated amongst thousands of the natives on the occasion of the procession.

Where did you get that?

The Communist Party gave it to them. The pamphlet reads—

Does that not represent the greatest degree of incitement that is possible in respect of our native races Who in the Transvaal are already unfriendly to the white man to tell them that they must prepare for civil war in the country? I put a question to the Minister in that connection and what was his reply? He said: “Yes, the matter was passed on to the police inJohannesburg but they refused to prosecute.” Is the head of the police in charge of the emergency regulations or is this the responsibility of the Minister? The Minister could have stopped them. This demonstration was allowed when 10,000 natives were incited against the Nationalists, against hon. members in this House, against people like Mr. Pirow and the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Minister addressed a meeting the other evening and he said he would continue with his policy of internment. I want to ask him: What leaders of what organisation is he going to intern?

What organisations have told him to do this?

, I want to tell him that he dare not intern communists, because if he did so he would have to intern the first man amongst the communists, and that is their honorary president, namely the Minister himself, and of course he cannot intern himself. In the House we have heard how natives are being stirred up in the platteland. I have not yet noted that the Minister has done anything in this matter. I have wondered whether he has arrived at a gentleman’s agreement with the communists that he shall take no action against them.

Who is the “gentleman” in the “gentleman’s agreement”?

I maintain that the Minister is playing with fire. He does not care a hoot what is going on in South Africa today. The Minister will recall what occurred on the 5th November in my own electoral division. On that day I got into touch with the Minister by telephone. He said that he was glad I had remained there to calm the feelings of the people. But what did the Minister do to stop it? I live there, I am amongst these people, and I know what is going on. You had all these difficulties as a result of communistic agitation.

Nothing of the sort.

I say it is so.

But you can say anything.

I discovered them at my own house, where they came to tell the domestic servant: You must not work tomorrow, you must strike.

Are those the people who gave you a hiding?

And so it is going on throughout the country. I wish now to relate to the Minister what happened the other day at Alexandra. Of course he will tell me that these people would not carry out the order of the court. The native is already hostile to the white man. He will not listen to anything from the court. The result was about 30 policemen landed in hospital with injuries. It is scandalous that affairs should be so handled in this country. The only man who can protect them is the Minister and he does not do so. On the contrary, he is encouraging these things.

On a point of order. Is the hon. member justified in using those words, that the Minister is encouraging rebellion?

No, the hon. member may not accuse the Minister of encouraging rebellion.

On a point of order, if the object of the word was to show that the Minister encouraged it by doing nothing is not that another question?

Was that the accusation made by the hon. member?

I have said repeatedly that the Minister did not stir a finger to stop these things, and I maintain that owing to his having done nothing he encouraged the trouble. I repeat that, and I shall reiterate that until the Minister proves that he is going to act in the „interests of South Africa and that he will impose restrictions on this communistic movement. [Time limit.]

The hon. member is one of those types of people who one finds in “Alice of Wonderland”. He believes that if he says three times a thing that is untrue, then it is true. I also live in Johannesburg, and it is an extraordinary thing, but it is so, my office happens to look over the place where the so-called Communistic meetings are held in front of the Town Hall. The hon. member has told the House that thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Communists hold meetings there. Well, what always makes me laugh in Johannesburg, is that Communists cannot get meetings. They hold those meetings in front of my office, and you will see a red banner: “Staan vas by die Nasionale Party” and they have probably a hundred people attending the meeting, and then some poor unfortunate fellow comes along and he talks Trotsky Communism. But the chief whip of the Nats says there is a gentlemen’s agreement between the hon. Minister and the Communists. Well, there was a gentlemen’s agreement, and it took place at the last election, and my friends of the Opposition know about it. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) knows that when the fight took place in the election we found that only Communists were fighting us. My friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) had to fight Mr. Boshof, and my friends over there told all the Afrikaans-speaking people to vote for Mr. Boshof. “Julie moet by julle mense staan; julle moet by julle eie bloed staan”, and they did not help the hon. member for Hillbrow. This excellent young man from Hillbrow came along and laughed at the Communists. The Communists used to come along and talk at the meetings and he used to wipe the floor with them. In every constituency in Johannesburg where a Labour man stood a Communist was put against him. Then my friends thought they would knock the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) out and they deliberately put a Nat in to take away his votes, hoping that the Communist would win.

You are talking nonsense.

Of course, that all stands in the Chronicles and the Kings of Israel. That is what my friends did.

You are talking nonsense.

I do not talk nonsense. I just give the ordinary quiet, simple truth that every man who runs may read. The hon. member talks about a gentlemen’s agreement. Then I want to return to the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Free State. How my old province has gone back. I want to say a few words to the leader of the Fascist Party, the gentleman who passed on a letter to Kadalie from the late Gen. Hertzog.

Who did that?

When was that?

If you will look up your diary you will find it. I will tell you when it was. It was just when you were the first secretary of Gen. Hertzog, and it was denied in this House.

Tell me the date.

It was denied by Mr. Swart in this House, so I looked up a book written by …. perhaps the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) can give me the name of the author.

What has this got to do with the vote?

What has this got to do with the vote? Everything on earth, Mr. Chairman. Because Kadalie was the first black Communist. That is what it has got to do with it, and the first black Communist was the greatest supporter of the Nationalist Party and you cannot get away from it. Unfortunately I cannot think of the name of the book. But Vera Brittain’s book has got the whole story.

Who is she?

If the hon. member does not know who Vera Brittain is, then I am sorry for him. Let him ask the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer).

I know, but you do not. She did not write the Testimony of Nonsense we have been hearing from you.

You know I gave you a smack last year and you are still crying about it and I will give you another smack. I come now to this honourable leader of the Nationalist Party in the Free State, this great man, the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He says to us that 2,000 policemen were taken overseas. What a terrible thing. 2,000 young Afrikaners went to fight the Italians so that he could sleep safely in his bed. 2,000 young Afrikaners were taken at Tobruk, and when they were captured, he and his friends did not say that they were sorry. They held a dinner, and they drank and they said: “Thank God, those 2,000 policemen have been captured”.

That is a lie.

Order, order.

They held a dinner and drank at that hotel in Parys when the hon. member’s leader was also present, and that leader drank with them.

I say that is a lie.

On a point of order, this is an absolute untruth that the hon. member has stated, and I ask that you request him to withdraw it.

The hon. member may refute it, but as I understood the hon. member he does not accuse the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) of having deliberately stated an untruth.

I do not know where he gets his facts from. I know he usually obtains his facts from sources on which one cannot rely. I assert that what he is saying is absolutely untrue, and I ask that you request him to withdraw it.

Unless the hon. member is prepared to go so far as to say that the hon. member for Hospital accuses him of having deliberately stated an untruth I cannot take the matter any further.

The hon. member for Hospital alleges that we were supposed to have given a dinner at which we drank toasts in regard to the South African troops having surrendered at Tobruk, and what I say is that the hon. member stated an untruth and under the rules of the House he must accept my word.

Did the hon. member for Hospital accuse the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) amongst others of taking part in such celebrations?

I did nothing of the sort; I never mentioned any names. What I said was this that they celebrated in Parys.

You said that the hon. member’s Leader was present; who did you refer to?

He mentioned my name.

I quote from a Hansard speech made by the late member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Louw Steytler). Unfortunately he is not here today or else he would be joining me. This was the last speech he made in this House, speaking alongside my friend, the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet).

Come back to the point; don’t run away now.

In any case this is not out of order.

On a point of order the hon. member was mentioning my name and he was insinuating that I was present at something of that sort. I say that the person who told him that told him a foul lie.

Does the hon. member for Hospital seek to impute that the hon. member for Winburg was or was not present at such a function?

I am not interested in the hon. member for Winburg.

Now he is running away.

I never mentioned the hon. member for Winburg. It is common knowledge that when Tobruk fell, the member for Winburg was under his bed.

The hon. member may proceed, but I must request the hon. member not to be so personal.

He is incapable of doing anything else.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it is a most difficult thing for me to make a speech in this House, because my friends won’t let me make it.

It is your stock in trade.

The hon. member for Winburg is so timid and so pure. I doubt his purity of motive in what he said this afternoon about the natives. Let me say this to the hon. member. He attacked the hon. Minister of Justice on the alleged ground that he had attended communist meetings. I make bold to say that the hon. Minister has never attended a communistic meeting in his life. What my friends are mixing up with Communism is the Medical Aid for Russia, and at these meetings which are held for the purpose of giving medical aid to Russia, at which I am pleased to be present, they have collected thousands and thousands of pounds to send over drugs to Russia to look after the wounded people of Russia and the children who have been ill-treated by their friends the Germans. That is what has happened. And may I say this to hon. members opposite? The hon. member for Humansdorp would not know about it because his father was not fighting, he was sitting in Cape Town. And the other gentlemen’s fathers did not fight because they were also sitting in Cape Town. [Time limit.]

We have becoine accustomed to the tactics of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) in coming to the House and making filthy, untrue and wanton allegations. That is all his stock-in-trade. He cannot rise to speak without making these filthy, untrue and wanton allegations.

On a point of order ….

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Is the hon. member in order in saying that I make filthy and untrue statements in this House?

I have already ordered the hon. member to withdraw.

On your ruling I withdraw the word “filthy”, and I put it in this way that the hon. member for Hospital has made a habit of standing up here and making untrue and distasteful allegations as he has done here today.

And then he usually runs away.

I am now going to challenge the hon. member in order to expose him. I think the time has arrived when that hon. member should be exposed, apart from the fact that he has dragged the debates in this House down to a very low level. No one in this House has ever dragged the debates down to such a low level as the hon. member for Hospital.

And you are a good second.

He asserted here that when I was leader of the Union Delegation at Geneva to the League of Nations I made propaganda for the admission of Russia as a member of the League of Nations. That is what he said. I assert that what the hon. member said is an absolute untruth. I challenge him to accompany me to the offices of the Department of External Affairs—and I hope the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of External Affairs will accord the necessary permission for us to inspect that particular file in the Department of External Affairs, where the question of the admission of Russia to the Leauge of Nations was the subject of an exchange of cables between myself and the then Prime Minister. If the Acting Prime Minister grants that permission I challenge he hon. member for Hospital to accompany me and there he will find the cable I sent to the then Prime Minister, a code cable in which I advised, in the strongest way, that South Africa should have nothing to do with any invitation to Russia to become a member of the League of Nations. The hon. member does not need to pretend that he is not listening. He is pretending that he is not listening, but he is listening very attentively. Now I ask the hon. member whether he accepts that invitation.

No, he is too cowardly for that.

As usual, as the American expression goes, “He hides in his funk hole”.

“Funk hole” or “skunk hole”?

I challenge him to accompany me to the Department of External Affairs. Let us turn up that file. The time has come when that hon. member should be exposed in this House for the continual untrue assertions he makes in this House. I come now to another allegation which he has now made for the umpteenth time in the House, and which I denied and which he has now made in reference to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), namely, that old story he has repeated several times regarding Kadalie. He stated previously that the hon. member for Winburg had some hand in the cable or telegram that was sent to me in connection with Kadalie when I was candidate at the Queenstown by-election in 1920. I assert that this is absolutely untrue. Such telegram was never sent to me.

It is a lie.

Were you also under the bed?

I was not in a funk hole. That hon. member is continually in a funk hole. Now I want to know whether he will accompany me to the Department of External Affairs and we shall see whether I have stated untrue things in this House. We revert now to the question of Communist agitation. I should like to direct a word or two to the hon. member. He seeks to create the impression that the thousands of natives that held a demonstration in the streets of Johannesburg on the day that peace was celebrated were there for one purpose only, namely, in connection with “Medical Aid for Russia”. That is what one would infer from his remarks.

Did you see it?

Yes, there are photographs.

Where did they come from?

These are photographs that were published in “Die Transvaler”.

In “Die Transvaler”?

Yes, “Die Transvaler” not a paper like that family Hansard of the hon. member’s, “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly”. Here is a photograph, and if the hon. member wants to prove that this photo is a fake he has the fullest opportunity to do so. This photograph shows where natives are selling the flag of the Soviet Union to other natives in the street. Is that “Medical Aid for Russia”? Incitement is being indulged in, and when I say this I call as witness the late Secretary for Native Affairs. I ask the hon. member to look up the evidence that was given last year before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, when the then Secretary for Native Affairs referred to the serious results of the activities of agitators amongst natives in the native areas, and when the question was put to him whether Senator Basner, one of the colleagues of the native representatives in this House, had anything to do with it, and he refused to answer the question. He did not say yes and he did not say no. But we know full well that Senator Basner who is an acknowleged Communist, was really there.

He is not a Communist.

If he is not a Communist we should like to know what a Communist is. The hon. member will tell me that Solly Sachs is also not a Communist and that Sam Kahn is not a Communist.

And that Arthur Barlow is not a Sap.

Here we have a little paper that was published by the Communist Party of South Africa, a paper called “Inkululeko” and here you see the Communist propaganda that is made by the returned native and coloured soldiers. Here you have a photograph—any member can see it—of an elephant. The story is told here of a so-called elephant—the elephant is of course the native who had been overseas—and I read here—

That was before the war.

What are you referring to?

I am not referring to a pigsty, I am referring to an elephant—

Incitement. Here is a photograph of it pushing against the wall that is being supported by the Europeans. It is possible, if you have the time, to trace numbers of these pamphlets in which the non-Europeans are inflamed. Anyone who goes about in the" streets today can observe the impudent attitude taken up by natives and Coloured people in the streets of Cape Town and other towns. We saw what happened in Jurgen’s Park where a Communist Jew by the name of Sam Kahn led a number of coloured children from Signal Hill to Jurgen’s Park and said, “This is your park, you can play in it”. The white children had to clear out. These things are occurring under Communist-Jewish agitators. There was fisticuffs and in this way the relationship between non-Europeans and Europeans is impaired. [Time limit.]

If the Bolshevists are such wonderful people and are going out into the world to give all the peoples freedom, why should we fight them in South Africa?

What did the “Argus” say?

My hon. friends backed the Germans, who wanted to take freedom away from the people. That is the difference. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) on two occasions said he was backing the Bolshevists because they talked with the same tongue as his own Party and were out to give the world freedom. Let them put that in their pipes and smoke it. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said: What an example this is to the blacks all over South Africa, what an example these Communists are. The work of the Minister of Justice, of the police, during the past five years has not been to endeavour to catch the criminals who committed ordinary crime, but to catch the people who cut telephone lines and telegraph wires, who blew up pylons—which carries the electricity to that great industry on which we live— who were killing people, shooting decent South African citizens, beating women, beating a Nationalist secretary. That is what the time of the police has been taken up with—not on Communism. And was that an example to the blacks? Hon. members on the other side have never said anything against those people. They have never protested in a single instance against sabotage in this country, against the bad way in which these people have insulted women. [Interruptions.]. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) must also take his medicine; he was also under a bed. During the whole of this war not on one occasion have they assisted the police to catch the men who were sabotaging the war effort. They sat quiet and they have sympathised in their newspapers. And the hon. member quotes “Die Transvaler” to us; A judge of the Supreme Court in Johannesburg not so long ago said that “Die Transvaler” is a Nazi newspaper.

The judge was a Jew.

Is the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg in order when I am speaking about pur hon. judges to make the remark: “Ja, maar hy is net ’n Jood.”

Did I understand the hon. member aright?

I say the judge was a Jew.

I do not regard this as a reflection on the conduct of a judge.

On a point of order, this is a most serious statement to be made here whereby the hon. member has attacked a judge.

I cannot regard that as an attack on the judge.

It was the way it was said; but you have given your ruling.

The Chairman is wiser than you are.

I ask the country and I ask the House, was that an example that my hon. friends set the blacks?

Did you not also say just now he was your friend?

The hon. member is also trying to get out of it. During the last five years not a single word appeared in “Die Volksblad,” “Die Transvaler” and “Die Burger” against the men who cut wires, blew up telephones, killed men, shot citizens, murdered a man at Lichtenburg, broke out of gaol, killed warders, fought ’ their own people through thick and thin with knuckledusters, whipped a distinguished member of their Party and whipped him well, and will whip him well again if he is not careful— not one word has been said by those gentlemen in this House against the crimes which have kept the police busy for five years. Instead they attacked the people running the Medical Aid for Russia, whose only object is to assist the Russian soldiers who have been maltreated by the German devils. They come into the House and that is the only cry they can put up.

Reply to my challenge.

The hon. member challenges the world. The man he has to challenge is Dr. Van Broekhuizen [Interruptions]. Hon. members do not want me to speak; but I want the country to know that in their anger; in their hatred of the hon. Minister of Justice they are attacking one of our great men and a son of one of the greatest men who lived in South Africa. He is a man who stopped hon. members on the other side making a neutrality pact ….

He is your bosom pal.

Yes, and I am very pleased to say that. The hon. member can be certain he would never be my bosom pal. The hon. Minister has been patient during the war. He has been thanked by hundreds of internees whose lives have been in danger during the war. These hon. members are attacking the Minister not because he has not played the game during the war but because they are filled with hatred for any decent Afrikaner who helped to save his country during the war.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the manner in which justice is being meted out and applied by his Department. We listened to the remarks by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz), and when we hear of such instances we cannot be surprised that the public outside are beginning to believe that one cannot expect justice from the Department of Justice. A feeling is growing that there is one kind of justice for certain people and another kind for other people. I am one of those who believe that when a person has committed an offence, he should he punished, but the deplorable aspect in our country is that if a poor railway worker perhaps opens a box of apples or if he takes a few apples which have fallen out, then he has to appear before the magistrate in the open court and if he is found guilty he is discharged from the service. Of course he has lone wrong and he must suffer for it. But it seems to me that the more important a man is and the higher the position is which he occupies, the better are the chances that the law will be ignored. It is my opinion that the more important the man who has committed an offence, the greater is his offence, and the richer the man is who committed the offence, the higher should be his penalty. There are cases where poor people steal things out of sheer want. The circumstances lead them to steal. They have to appear in a court open to the public. Now I should like the Minister to give an explanation why, for instance, in the case of a district surgeon which I will mention, a different procedure was followed. That district surgeon committed a low and mean theft. I will tell you how it happened. One day he passed a farm and noticed a certain article there. That night he travelled 72 miles in his motor car in order to go and steal that article. It was an article which was very scarce during the war-time and he travelled 72 miles in order to steal it. I want to show you what was in this man’s mind. When he came home, he hid the article in his lavatory under the seat. That is not the usual place where you keep that particular article. There he hid it and the police found it there. That person was summoned but he appeared in court behind closed doors. I now ask the Minister why in this case of a district surgeon who was not a minor, but a person of advanced age, why in this case the trial took place behind closed doors.

In how far does this come under the Vote “Justice”?

I am speaking of the mander in which justice is being meted out. If a man commits an offence then one would expect that all people will be treated alike. If a district surgeon commits such a theft and is found guilty, then one would expect the Attorney-General to report him to the Medical Council. Why was that not done in this case? I want to know why this case of the district surgeon was heard behind closed doors.

Does this not fall under the Vote “Supreme Court”?

No, it came before the magistrate. I am dealing with the policy of the Department.

How can that be the policy of the Department?.

I want to know the reason why this case was not reported to the Medical Council. Was it perhaps because the person concerned is a supporter of the Government or because he is rich or because he occupies an important position? Is that why he was protected and why no steps were taken in his case? I should like to hear from the Minister whether he will have the matter investigated and whether he will take care that the case will be reported to the Medical Council. A few moments ago I said that the more important a man is, the greater is his offence. A man who does wrong should be punished. There should be no discrimination in order to protect an important and rich person. That is the reason why there is dissatisfaction in the country and that is the reason why the feeling is growing that for certain persons there is a certain kind of justice and that to other persons a different kind applies. I think that our administration of justice can at least be expected to treat all people on the same basis and not that a rich man or a person in a high position should get away with it more easily. I therefore want to know whether this case will be reported to the Medical Council and why it was heard behind closed doors.

I should like to hear from the Minister what he intends doing with the political prisoners who are still being kept at Baviaanspoort. It costs us £550,000 per year and as the war is now over I do not see why they should be kept any longer under lock and key. They did not commit any crimes. We can understand the reason why they were originally interned, but why should they still be sitting there? I assume that in other countries such political prisoners have now already been set free and I should like to know what the attitude of the Minister is going to be. Is he going to keep them there still longer or is he going to set them free? Furthermore I should like to know from the Minister why the leader of the Grey Shirts was arrested and interned. All these years, since the beginning of the war on the 4th September, 1939, he was a free man. Only a few months ago when the war was approaching its end, the Minister gave instructions to arrest the leader of the Grey Shirts. Today he is being kept in the internment camp. Why?. By means of a question to the Minister I tried to find out why Mr. Weichardt, the leader of the Grey Shirts, was arrested and why he is still being detained. The reply of the Minister was—

I should like to hear from the Minister what Mr. Weichardt has done in regard to the public interest. What crime did he commit for which he is today being detained in the internment camp. Why was he not arrested when the war broke out? Then it would have looked more like a case of public interest, but now that the war is over the Minister comes along and on the station suddenly has Mr. Weichardt arrested who was on his way to Piet Retief to address a few of his followers. Why did that happen?

Why not Senator Basner?

Exactly. I should like to see the Minister get up here and give us an explanation. We feel that is not only an injustice towards this person, but that it is a crime. If he had held inflammatory speeches or if through his influence incidents and disturbances had taken place, one could understand that the Minister would take such a step. But this person kept quiet and did nothing which caused trouble or disturb the peace. He has been arrested and put into an internment camp. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he will now, as the war with Germany has come to an end, release Mr. Weichardt from the military camp within the next few days. He has done nothing wrong and his followers want to know what is going to happen. They insist on him being set at liberty. At his meetings Mr. Weichardt stated that he would to nothing to obstruct the Government in its war policy. All those years he was a free man and now all of a sudden he is arrested. Why?

I should like to ask the Minister whether something cannot be done to produce more intelligible and better drafting of regulations and proclamations appearing in the Gazette. Unfortunate laymen and lawyers have to deal with these proclamations and regulations, and in one of them I personally had to handle there was a string of about 200 words without a single fullstop. Even for a lawyer who is trained to the job it sometimes entails hours of work to disentangle what a proclamation means. I do think it would be in the interests of the general public if something could be done to ensure a simpler and more intelligible wording of these proclamations. This question of simplicity and intelligibility might also be applied to statutes. As the Minister is aware, when we amend a statute the Parliamentary draftsman simply says: Amend Section so-and-so of Act so-and-so; in the amending Act that is how it stands. Often a lawyer may have to delve into half-a-dozen statutes before he finds the original statute sought to be amended, and there is an enormous and unnecessary waste of time and labour. I would suggest to the Minister when a section in a statute is amended the section should simply be given as amended in the amending statute. Then you could have a clear statement of what Parliament meant, and you could find out at once and quite simply what is intended by the new amending section without having to delve into a dozen statutes. I would like the Minister to consider seriously adopting this simpler method of stating clearly in each statute what Parliament desires to be done. Another point I should like to ask the Minister is whether he would not consider setting up a law revision committee as exists, for instance, in England, a standing committee of, say, ex-judges of appeal or of judges who have retired from the benches of the provincial divisions, to work as a permanent court of revision of obsolete law and statutes and to bring statutes up to date. It would function very well as the Minister has at his disposal an excellent body of men of the higest judicial experience who could very well be employed and who could have their talents exercised instead of being wasted as at present, in seeing our statutes are kept up to date and that any law that particularly needs revision is brought to the attention of the Minister’s department. Such a committee could also be used for gradually codifying our law which it very badly needs, and their aid would be of great value to the Department of Justice. I would urgently ask the Minister to consider that suggestion and see what can be done about it, more particularly as peace has come and this excellent body of retired judges might well be used in the service of their country. Finally, I would suggest that his department might well be employed also in drawing up a list of those magistrates’ courts which should be rebuilt. I am more particularly concerned with the magistrate’s court in my constituency of Jeppes; that building is one of the oldest in Johannesburg, and it is so antiquated that it is almost falling to pieces. While I admit that housing for ex-servicemen should be given priority I would ask the Minister whether his department might not very usefully meanwhile direct its attention to these magistrates’ courts buildings which need to be reconstructed.

I feel it is my duty to reply to certain accusations by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). The country outside should know that we deny those charges. In the first place he said that we did not contribute a single penny towards the fund of £34 000 which has been collected by the Ossewa-Brandwag for the support of the families of internees. I maintain that a large part of that collected money has been contributed by us. I personally contributed. I further point out that an appeal was placed in the “Volksblad” in the Free State and that a large sum of money was collected. That money was placed under the control of a commission which used it ‘to give support to the wives and children of internees. That fund still exists and it is still supporting people. In the second place the hon. member said that all of us who did not take part in the war and who were not at the front, were hiding. It is dangerous for people in glass houses to throw stones. When the bombs burst at Magersfontein and Welmoed, when that hon. member should have been fighting, I suppose he was also one of those who hid under their beds in Bloemfontein? He was not there and according to his own statement a person who remains neutral is hiding. He should apply that to himself. Furthermore he said that we are ungrateful towards Russia. We are very grateful towards the Russia of 1902 and towards Czar Nicholas for the ambulance he sent us.

The hon. member should not wander too far from this vote.

But the hon. member denied that we were grateful.

The hon. member should not go further into that matter.

Then I only want to say that we are grateful for the ambulance which we received during that time. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister of Justice. In the rural areas and in our rural towns a great number of thefts are taking place. Farms and houses in villages are being burgled, and we want to ask the Minister, seeing that the war has now come to an end, to strengthen our police force. Up till now we have realised his difficulties for making available sufficient policemen but now that the war is over we want to plead with the Minister to increase the police force and to protect us against these impudent burglars.

The hon. member should raise that under the Police Vote.

In that case I shall go further into this matter on a future occasion.

This afternoon we heard a great deal about Communism from the other side of the House. We on this side are also against Communism just as we are against Nazism. That cannot be said about the members on the other side. One day they are in favour of one thing and the next day again they are in favour of another thing. There was a time when they were supporters of Communism. In 1920 their Leader stated the following at Vryburg—

Where are you quoting from?

The members on the other side cannot deny it. That is what their Leader said. We did not hear them say anything against Communism when Communist Russia was Germany’s friend. Then Russia was their best friend. I know it and they know it. I wanted to say, however, that we should not deal with such matters in this House in such a manner. We know the dangers of Communism. We know the dangers threatening the European population in South Africa. Who is now the greatest enemy of white civilisation in our country? It is the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), for he is opposed to immigration and if we do not get immigration on a large scale, white civilisation in our country will disappear.

When did I say that I was opposed to immigration?

The hon. member knows that he is opposed to immigration and he is opposed to it because he knows that when mass immigration should take place, it would mean the end of the Nationalist Party, for their votes would disappear. As a white population we should stand together. The representatives of the Nationalist Party and the voters supporting them should support us and help us to save the European civilisation in South Africa, instead of carrying on as they are now carrying on. They pretend that salvation lies in the establishment of a Nationalist Government. That will be no solution to the problem. What will they do when they come into office? We must have immigration of the right kind, for we have to build up a large European population here. That is the only salvation and the sooner we accept such a policy the better it will be for us. It concerns the whole future of South Africa.

What has that to do with this vote?

It has a lot to do with this vote. It has just as much to do with it as Communism has to do with it.

Do you want Communists to settle here.

Just as little as I want Nazis to come here.

On a point of order ….

What is the point of order?

Whilst the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) was making his speech, the hon. member on the other side asked him what his speech had to do with the Justice Vote. I think that is a reflection on the Chair.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Middelburg may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have finished what I wanted to say.

I am always in a quandary after the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) has spoken, because I do not know whether I should take notice of him or not. One does not want to be unkind, but it really looks as if the hon. member is always out of his depth. He does not know what is going on here. Under the Justice Vote he is now talking about immigration.

But still I had my say.

They I will assume that the hon. member is not as dense as he looks. When we attack the Minister of Justice, because he allows Communist propaganda to flourish in this country, as it is flourishing now, the hon. member gets up here and quotes from a speech by the Leader of the Opposition which was made I do not know how many years ago, in any case shortly after the revolution in Russia. I cannot find anything wrong with what he said then. He said the Communism or Bolshevism at that time gave Russia freedom after the people had been trodden down under the tyranny of the Czar. That is quite correct. That has nothing to do with Communism as we find it today in this country. What we are concerned about is the development of Communistic agitation at present going on in this country.

So am I.

The hon. member says that he is also opposed to Communism but in spite of that he gets up here to defend the Minister of Justice who is the patron of the Society of the Friends of the Soviet Union.

What is wrong with that?

Those hon. members maintain that they are opposed to Communism, but nevertheless they defend the Minister of Justice who is the patron of an association which wants to promote and establish Communism here. Does he know that the Prime Minister and other Ministers as well as members of his Party were the patrons of a conference held here a few weeks ago in order to strengthen the bonds with Communism.

I do not know.

That is why I said that the hon. member does not know what is going on; and that is also why I say, that, however kind the hon. member may otherwise be, one never knows whether one should take notice of him when he speaks in this House. I now want to deal with the Department of the Minister. In the first place I want to ask him whether it carries his approval that police constables are being told or are being used in their spare time to collect from house to house in the streets of Johannesburg for certain wär funds? That is taking place and it cannot be denied. The Minister may say that no such instructions have been given to the police. He may tell me that the police constables are doing this voluntarily. On behalf of those policemen I want to tell him that they are not doing so voluntarily, but that indirect pressure is brought to bear upon them by higher officers. Whether a policeman wants to do it or not, if he does not want to fall into disfavour with his officers he has to go out to collect that money. That is not what the police are being employed for and the Minister should protect the policemen against officers who are abusing the influence which they have over those people.

Which fund is that?

The fund for widows of R.A.F. men. I have now mentioned the fund to the hon. member. Then I want to raise a further matter and I want to ask the Minister whether that is his policy. It concerns the position in regard to bilingualism as it exists in certtain courts of law in this country. I am not dealing with the courts as such, but with the instructions which are given to officials by the Department of Justice. Last year a certain Mr. J. Dupisani was chosen to serve on the jury in the Supreme Court in Johannesburg. In the first place the jury members are being asked in the ordinary manner to reply to the roll call in order to see whether they are present. Bilingualism in the Department of Justice goes so far that this question is put to the jury in English only. One would swear that there are only English-speaking people in South Africa. Nobody dreams of asking those people in Afrikaans whether they are present or not. Thereafter the jury members are asked to take the oath—again in English only. Not the slightest attempt is made to be fair and polite towards the Afrikaans-speaking people. Politeness towards Afrikaans-speaking people does not matter—we must only be polite towards the other section. Mr. Dupisani refused to take the oath in English and then the officials started looking around. And do you know what? There actually was not a single Afrikaans oath form in the whole Supreme Court of Johannesburg and neither in Pretoria. They looked all over the place but in the year 1944 there was not a single Afrikaans form in the whole court; and those are the people who profess to be in favour of bilingualism. That is how they apply the Constitution in South Africa. Then an exchange of correspondence took place between Mr. Dupisani and the Department of Justice. Thereafter he was sworn in time and again as a jury member, but then objections were raised against him. For a whole week he went there every day, but because there was no Afrikaans form available, objection was made against him so that he could not serve on the jury. The Minister must not come and tell me that they objected against him because most of those people were English-speaking and because they wanted to conduct the case in English only. The question was not that it would be difficult to interpret every time. The position briefly is that bilingualism in the Supreme Court in Johannesburg is put into practice in such a way that there is not even an Afrikaans oath form available. I know that the Minister may not be personally responsible and that the blame lies with his officials. But even in that case the responsibility still rests with the Minister to supervise matters. I now want to know from the Minister whether he is going to rebuke these responsible officers with a smile or whether he is going to take steps to prevent that Section 137 be violated in this manner. I do not know when the Minister is going to reply.

No, he is waiting for Barlow to reply.

Perhaps the Minister still needs a night to ruminate on this matter. If he is only going to reply tomorrow, I just want to tell him that if I am not here when he replies it is not because I want to be imploite, but because I cannot be here tomorrow.

I have noticed that the hon. member for Water-berg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) once or twice tried to speak, and I merely waited to give him an opportunity to speak. I shall at once deal with the points he broached. The first relates to bilingualism. It is our policy to apply bilingualism. In regard to the taking of the oath, this is often done on the platteland. Hon. members opposite know that frequently on the platteland the oath is only taken in Afrikaans. In Johannesburg where the work is mainly English, it is taken in English.

But anyone on the platteland may ask that the oath should be taken in English.

Yes, that is so.

The point is here that they have not had a form of oath in Afrikaans.

That must be put right, but it is a mistake that dates prior to 1924. If the Afrikaans form of the oath is not available now it was not at that time.

No, no.

That is the position.

But you do not now wish to attack the late Mr. Tielman Roos.

But Pirow is not dead. In any case it is a mistake, and it must be rectified. We shall see to it that there is a proper form. In regard to the summoning of the members of the jury, the hon. member knows that it frequently occurs on the platteland that exception is taken to an English-speaking person or the converse, an Afrikaansspeaking person, in order to eliminate the necessity of employing an interpreter. Sometimes it is resented when we do this. But as far as the other point is concerned, I agree that it should be put right.

When?

Immediately. As far as the police are concerned there is nothing of the nature of them being compelled to go round collecting money. Their private time is their own, and if they want to go round and collect money they can do so. No pressure is exercised on them and the Department will see to it that nothing of the sort is done. I thought it best to reply to those two points immediately. Then I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He referred to people who had been interned without there having been any proof against them and without there having been any grounds or reasons for this. This has happened in exceptional cases. I shall not go into some of these cases, and I am doing so in the interests of those people themselves. But because I have to reply here and because the matter has been mentioned here I shall refer to the case of Strobosch. He was interned and he was released because as a result of subsequent investigation it appeared he was innocent. But Strobosch will not deny that he was negligent in not exercising strict supervision over the section of the Department for which he was responsible.

But you are not going to intern a man for that.

Allow me to explain the position. I do not want to do this individual any harm in order to defend the Department. But ammunition disappeared. That was a dangerous thing in view of the conditions prevailing in the country, and Strobosch was responsible for it. After we had gone into the matter and after he had been interned, his case came before the court, where it was thoroughly investigated and he was found not guilty. Another man in the Department was found guilty and sentenced to fourteen months’ imprisonment.

I have no complaint regarding a person who was punished by the court because he was guilty.

My point is that Strobosch could not take offence in the circumstances that steps were taken against him in the first place. The matter was thoroughly investigated. I know nothing about the case of Potgieter. The hon. member must have got hold of a wrong name. As far as Sondagh is concerned I do not want to say too much about his case. There were circumstances that justified the internment. If the hon. member will see me privately I shall give him the facts.

But the Minister of the Interior told us here that the charge against him was quite unfounded.

Neither can he take umbrage at the fact that we interned him. Let me take another case. I do not want to mention the names of individuals. Let me take the case of A. He was sworn in as a stormtrooper. He acted in collusion with the other stormtroopers in the neighbourhood. Subsequently violence was committed. The hon. member will admit that the onus rests on A to prove he was innocent, and he could not take exception to us having interned him. Later it transpired he was not guilty of the specific offence that had been committed.

But why was not the head of the stormtroopers interned?

We only intern people when they are guilty.

Then the information was erroneous in the case of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz)?

You did not ask whether they were interned, but whether they were in our hands.

Then they have not been interned?

No, not interned, but they are in our hands.

Is their number a secret?

No, I can give no further information on that.

What do you mean by being in your hands?

These are people who have been sentenced in connection with other saboteurs and they are still serving their sentence. At the moment two other persons have been interned who have had nothing to do with the investigation into the case of the hon. member for Westdene. One is still being detained because the case against him depends on evidence that can be produced but in respect of which we still wish to protect the people.

Does this apply to the hon. member for Westdene?

No. I have referred to one, the case of the other is still sub judice.

What about Mr.

Weichardt?

His case is sub judice, as I have stated. He has noted an appeal with the appeals officer.

Then it is not sub judice.

Yes it is. We have always followed that policy. The appeals officer fulfils an important function and he must be able to go into those matters, and form a judgment, without being influenced by an expression of opinion either by me or by anyone else. Then in addition there are six fugitives; they were internees. The one interne was arrested in connection with the investigation into the attack on the hon. member for Westdene.

Why was he not brought before the court?

In the public interest we have not done that. We are dealing here with a very serious matter and we have to be cautious. We have to protect members on the other side from violence. Those hon. members know what I mean. Members of Parliament are not the only people affected; we have also to protect members of their Party. The hon. member for Westdene will agree with me ….

No, I will not agree with you.

The hon. member is not aware yet of what I wish to say but still he says he will not agree with me. He knows he was threatened before he was attacked.

Yes, I know that.

Why then did you say that you did not agree with me?

I did not agree with your statement that you had to protect members on this side.

I spoke about members on the other side and their supporters. Some of them have already been threatened. In the second place, there are other members, also members of Parliament, who have been threatened, members of the Party on the other side; we as a Government cannot tolerate violence, and we have taken steps to suppress this new procedure and we are going to suppress it.

But no one can tell me that the danger is past. Will any hon. member tell me that no other member of their Party is in danger?

The Minister of Lands is also threatening me.

Observations have been made in reference to a speech I made and in which I stated that we would ensure that the regulations were enforced, and that we would act after the suspension of hostilities to ensure that law and order are maintained. This is one of the cases to which I referred, that hon. members must be protected.

What others are there?

There was the case of violence in Pretoria against the watchman at the office of a control official in order to take articles away with violence. That was after my speech. We cannot allow things of that sort to develop. At that time when sabotage was committed I had already voiced my thanks to the Opposition for the assistance they had given us.

Why do you not say that to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow)?

I expressed my thanks before, but you will agree that the new sort of violence must be suppressed. The attack on the hon. member for Westdene was a very serious one. It was carried out in an unmerciful way and he might easily have lost his life as a result. Hon. members therefore will not resent the fact that until we know the result of the case we shall detain these ten who have been interned.

Will they be tried later?

It depends on the information we get. In connection with most of the cases we have had conclusive information. In reference to sabotage practically 99¾ per cent. of the cases have been solved and the persons concerned have been convicted. Many of these young lads were misled and today they are serving long sentences.

And those who misled them are at large.

If hon. members on the other side will assist in bringing those who are responsible before the courts, we shall not hesitate to act. On the other hand, there are also certain organisations in our country which believe that seeing that things in Europe are now taking a different course they can achieve something in an underhand manner. That, too, will not be tolerated.

What organisation?

It is not in the public interest to mention it.

It certainly is not in the public interest to say why you supported the Ossewa-Brandwag candidate at Beaufort West.

I think that matter has been widely discussed on other occasions. I do not know anything about it except from hearsay. The hon. member further complained about the emergency regulations, that we did not enforce them as strictly as possible. These emergency regulations were adopted in time of war. We took this course and it was necessary, and it was better to do this than to introduce martial law, which could easily have beep done in view of the condition the country was in. But the Government did not want to bring in martial law, so we adopted the emergency regulations and enforced them in an intelligent although mild form. If we had acted drastically under the emergency regulations ….

You would not have been able to stand me a drink.

If we had acted drastically many people who made speeches from a public platform, representing the party on the other side and other parties, would have landed in difficulties, because there were technical breaches, but we took the view that the emergency regulations were there to protect the country and not to be used as a weapon against political opponents, and where the country was not really endangered we did not apply the regulations. We were strongly condemned by our own side, but I think hon. members on the other side admit today that the mild method of application was better in the long run. In view of the fact that this was the course adopted in certain circumstances, we had to follow the same course generally. You could not apply the regulations mildly in the case of one man and rigorously in respect of another. Hon. members, on the other hand, made speeches, for instance, which if they had been made in any other country would have been followed by strong measures against them. That was not done here.

Nonsense.

Could anyone in Germany have stood on a public platform and said that the salvation of Germany depended on a British victory?

What about Joe Stalin?

You would not venture that even in Russia.

In no other country have regulations been enforced as mildly as in this country. I think the policy was right, but seeing that hon. members thought it was right in certain circumstances they must not now ask that we should apply them in the strictest manner where the law has not been ‘transgressed. Their attitude is that we must proceed mildly against nazism but drastically against communism. That will not work. There is another point. The hon. member spoke about regulations and referred to lotteries. The same thing applies to lotteries. The hon. member knows that for years and years there have been raffles at church bazaars and other bazaars.

When were you last at a church bazaars? It never happens at a church bazaar.

I have been at many church bazaars where raffles were run.

These must have been Synagogue bazaars.

These have never been prevented. In any case during the time of the Nationalist Party from 1924 to 1932 such raffles were actually run at church bazaars, all churches being concerned and no ’ steps were taken against them. During the war the policy was indeed not to permit lotteries on the streets, except where money was being collected for war purposes and war charitable institutions. We did not intervene there unless it was clear that a profit was being made or a big commission was being paid out. Then we took immediate steps, and hon. members need merely look at the records of the courts to see how many prosecutions have been instituted in connection with that. Strong supervision was exercised in this connection by the police. Hon. members speak about Communism and what they describe as the communist danger. It appears that if anyone is a communist and he speaks, they want us to prosecute him. The communists form a political party who have a perfect right to exist so long as they act within the limits of the law. If they do not transgress the law there is no action we can take against them. It is obvious, however, that should the law be broken action will’ be taken. If the law is broken it does not matter whether it is the communists or any other party, but I have always said when allegations have been made against the communists: Point out to me where the law has been broken. Now we hear about speeches, communist speeches in connection with their cause. Well, I want to say that the communist speeches have not been nearly so strong as the speeches that have been made by certain hon. members of the Opposition in connection with the war. Incitement!

We let you have it, that is all.

And if a communist wants to let you have it, in turn, you do not want to allow that.

We did not run round amongst the natives and run you down amongst them

I do not want to go into that, but the Nazis did in fact go round amongst the natives in the country and inflamed them a good deal.

What has our Party got to do with that?

And what have we to do with the communists?

How many Nazis have been arrested for inciting the natives?

Many have been arrested.

Why do you not arrest the communists who have done the same thing?

The communists are not doing it in a subversive way. The Nazis are doing it subversively, with subversive purposes, and hon. members know that as well as I do. The communists, as such, are a lawful party and the department can only be asked to take action where they infringe the law.

You are shutting your eyes.

Why do you not bring your charges so that they can be investigated? Why do you not mention instances?

When we bring a complaint to you you say: “Go and see Wyley.”

The hon. member for Westdene spoke a great deal here about the Brakpan case. He knows very well that for a certain reason Mr. Rabie was dischaged from the Licensing Board. Until that time he served and he was messenger of the court. He was messenger of the court and he was appointed to the Liquor Licensing Board, and I regard that as very undesirable. Such a messenger is an official of the court.

He serves under a magistrate. He is dependent, because his engagement is on a monthly basis, and it is not desirable that such people should serve on a licensing board. The fact that this was the case before is no justification. I have laid down the policy that as far as the Department is concerned absolutely no messengers of the court may serve on licensing boards.

When was this policy laid down?

The minute I discovered that Rabie was a member of the Liquor Licensing Board.

It was a policy against Rabie.

Twenty years is as a minute in his eyes.

In other instances it was also laid down at the request of the other side of the House, although not in connection with the Liquor Licensing Board. It was brought to my notice that a messenger of the court was chairman of a branch of the United Party, and I took immediate steps that he should resign. Now there is the other case of Mitchell. I want to say here clearly that Mitchell was for a long period Mayor of Brakpan. He was a member of the Licensing Board. The question then came up whether he could sit as a member of the Licensing Board when an application by his brother was being dealt with. He sought information himself. He consulted a magistrate, and a magistrate advised him not to take the session. He then approached the Department of Justice, and the Under-Secretary also advised him that he ought not to attend the session but he did not say that he might not sit.

Because he could not say that.

Exactly. He took his own opinion and sat. There was nothing secret about the matter. Everyone of them knew about it. He made a mistake there and the judge ticked him off strongly. But it was not done in secret, and in future he will not sit. But for a long time he was a member of the Licensing Board.

What do you mean when you say he will not sit again?

Not if the case of his brother comes up. That is all that the court decided.

The court said it was very improper for him to have sat.

I accept the decision of the court entirely. However, it was no secret, but really to make a test.

Come, come!

The Department cannot say that he may not sit. In the future he will again be able to sit. His information was, and I believe he also took legal opinion, that he could sit. The judge stated quite explicitly that he sat not by way of a test but to try to further his brother’s case.

The judge stated very clearly that he sat not to test the matter but to try to advance his brother’s case.

Well, apparently he did not advance his brother’s case very much, because his brother lost., The case was widely discussed. Mr. Mitchell had a good record.

You call that a good record?

He was Mayor of Brakpan for a long time,

Was he recommended by the town council?

He was always a member.

After the court case?

No, that time he was not recommended. Then another political party got the upper hand. Then someone had to be appointed, and here was Mitchell who otherwise had a very good record.

“Otherwise.”

He was then re-appointed. He had long experience, and the point on which they differed was decided against him and the case will not arise again, but neither the Department nor anyone else told him that he could not sit. He went to the magistrate, and there was no secret about that.

You have only spoken about Rabie, who was not re-appointed. What about Vorster? Why did you refuse to accept a recommendation to appoint him?

I am free to exercise my discretion, and after going into the matter I regarded that as undesirable.

Do you regard the judgment of the court as a reflection on Mr. Mitchell’s bona fides?

Not on his bona fides.

Did you hear what the judge said?

It was a reflection upon his action. He made no secret of the fact that he was going to sit. I accept that as being the case. Hon. members on the other side cannot complain that I did not accept the recommendation of the Town Council of Brakpan. During the years when the Nationalist Party was in power and when the South African Party had a majority on the Town Council of Brakpan, Brakpan made a recommendation then that was not accepted.

Was it in connection with a man with a record such as this?

Was the man condemned by the judge?

He was not condemned by the judge. He acted wrongly in this case, but if he had not sat he would not have been condemned.

Of course not.

The charge against him was this, that seeing his brother was an applicant he should have recused himself in connection with the application. That was the point. The reflection upon him was only that he sat in this specific instance.

Do you know that the judge said: “The only honourable way would have been ….”

I know the judge expressed himself strongly and condemned him for having sat.

In other words, it was a dishonourable thing for him to have sat.

That is what the judge said, but he did not do it mala fides; he did it openly and everyone knew about it and otherwise he had a very good record and had always been recommended.

The judge said: “Mitchell has a mind which cannot see that the honourable way ….”

I admit he expressed himself strongly.

If I commit a theft in such a case am I a thief?

There was no theft committed. He did not commit any offence.

But it was a dishonourable thing.

He did it under a misunderstanding.

No.

He was advised and thought he could still sit. If the United Party had obtained a majority at Brakpan they would again have appointed him.

That would have been a reflection on the Saps of Brakpan. No wonder the United Party did not get a majority.

It is an ugly reflection on the United Party.

I want to go further. In connection with this matter judgment was given on the 25th January the year before last, and he continued to sit for a whole year, and neither the Nationalists of Brakpan nor the members of the United Party, nor the Brakpan municipality on whose behalf he was appointed, nor anyone else had any objection.

You must know that they could not do that.

No one took exception to him sitting. No one said that he should be taken off. Not once were representations made against his re-appointment.

But they only sit once a year. How could they have raised an objection earlier?

It was only after he was appointed when he could no longer be removed that an objection was made. Not the slightest censure was passed on him in the town council. That could have been done. There was not the slightest objection by any member of the Nationalist Party at Brakpan. But after he was re-appointed ….

How could they have objected; under what Act?

Very easily. What prevented them from asking him to resign? What prevented them from passing a vote of censure?

Do not be so stupid.

Why were no steps taken? They could easily have introduced a motion of censure in the Brakpan Town Council and asked that he should resign. But nothing was done until he was appointed. The first time that I heard that anyone at Brakpan was raising an objection was after he had been re-appointed. They all knew that new appointments had to be made and they did not stir a finger to say that the department should not appoint him again.

Did the town council recommend him?

Was it only Nationalists of the town council who registered a protest?

No objection was made before he was re-appointed.

Please answer my question. In reference to the deputation that called on you did these protests come only from the Nationalists of the town council, or were the protests also on behalf of the public?

They were not all Nationalists. They spoke on behalf of others.

I said that this was an insult to the Saps at Brakpan. I thought they knew better.

When hon. members talk about this matter I should like them to tell me why no objection was raised in the town council, why no motion of censure was proposed? But it was after his re-appointment and after Rabie was discharged that it was first brought up. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) also mentioned the question of the Germans as did the hon. member for Wakkerstoom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk). Weichardt’s case is still sub judice, and I consequently cannot deal with it here. In regard to the Germans, the war is over, the fighting is finished, but no one knows yet what the position is going to be. The war against Japan is still in progress and provisionally the present procedure will be followed.

I spoke about the theft by the district surgeon.

As far as that matter is concerned it has never been brought to my notice. I have asked for information, and I will go into it. At the moment I do not know anything about it.

Will it be referred to the Medical Council?

I shall first have to investigate the matter.

Will you carry out the law?

Yes, that is always done in my Department.

Will you not make another emergency regulation?

I think I have now dealt with all the points and that hon. members will agree with me.

I want to turn to another point, but I promise the Minister we shall come back to his answer. I should like him to have time, however, to reflect on the matter I shall bring up because it is a matter of great importance to the sound administration of justice in our country. I refer to the application of War Measure 57 of 1941. That war measure has placed a special power in the hands of the Minister of Justice, and that is the power in certain circumstances to take any person into custody and to question him, to lock him up and keep him locked up until he answers questions to the satisfaction of the Minister of Justice. That is a very exceptional power that has been given to the Minister. It is a power that is unknown in ordinary circumstances. It is a power the granting of which can only be justified by war conditions. It should only be applied and strictly applied, in conformity with the terms of the regulation itself. I shall now tell the House briefly what powers it gives. In the first place it is restricted to people who are guilty or suspected of being guilty of a specified offence. That is the first qualification. Only three offences are mentioned, and these are acts of violence towards persons, damage to property, and theft. It is restricted to these three cases only, but ordinary cases do not fall under it. In addition to those another element is required, and that is that one of the three offences must have been committed with the intention of hampering the Government’s war effort. That is what is essential. In the circumstances the Minister can place in custody a person whom he suspects of taking part in any of the offences concerned. It must be with the intention of hampering the war effort. Remember the words “offence concerned”. Consequently he can detain anyone he considers as taking part in that; and in the second place any person who is in possession of information in reference to the “aforesaid offence”. You see in each case it is nicely ringed in with the provision that it must be something in connection with an offence that is here described. He can question a person he has taken into custody in these circumstances, but here again only in reference to the offence mentioned, and nothing else than the offence mentioned— and he can detain him further at any place he thinks suitable until the Minister is convinced—the discretion rests with the Minister—that that person has answered fully and truthfully all questions that have been put to him in connection with the offence mentioned. This is a very extra-ordinary power that is given to the Minister of Justice. One would have expected that that power could only be exercised strictly in terms of the proclamation, and that the Minister would have been at great pains to see that that measure was not applied in circumstances described in the proclamation itself. But my complaint now against the Minister is that he is applying this proclamation to cases that are not covered by the language of this war measure. That is my first complaint; and in the second place where he applies this, whether it is rightly done or not, the treatment he then accords people who taken into custody in terms of this regulation is of such a character that, to say the least—you know that I am not prone to exaggerate—it is a shock to any person’s sense of justice. Here we have the exceptional case. I want to say in the first place, and I have already mentioned it here on the occasion of a motion that was proposed by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell), that this measure is used in respect of cases that it was never intended to cover, and it is not only a single case that I am referring to; there are many cases of this sort, cases of infraction of the diamond laws, not cases of personal violence, not cases of damage to property and not cases of theft; and in every case there has been no suggestion that that particular offence was committed with the intention of hampering the Government in its war effort. In a number of cases it has been applied outside the scope of this section. I think the Minister will not deny that he has used this measure to bring to justice people he suspected of transgressing the diamond laws. Now I want to ask the Minister: Where does he get the right under this war measure to take people into custody in those circumstances and to hold them for examination when it is not one of these offences that is involved? But now I want to go further into a particular case, the case of Mr. Botes that was recently heard at Upington. He pleaded guilty and on that he was sentenced. I want to present his case to the House from these two standpoints. In the first place there was no question that it was one of those offences. There was no suggestion that it was the intention to hamper the Government’s war effort, so in any event this war measure absolutely did not apply. But suppose for a moment that his case did fall under this, then I want to read out the sworn evidence that was given in the circuit court in the presence of a representative of the Attorney-General together with a challenge to the Crown to contest the facts mentioned there, a challenge that was not accepted. I may say that I have done everything in my power to check the facts that I have today submitted to the House and see they are absolutely correct, and that there is no question of exaggeration. Here is the evidence that was led. After that evidence was given by Mr. Botes he was cross examined by the representative of the Crown and during the cross-examination no doubt was thrown on the facts that he gave in his evidence. Now I should like to read the evidence out to you and then you can judge for yourselves. I only wish to add that the person was held for examination in connection with information which he was supposed to have in his possession in connection with a Mr. Kallie Kahn and Barney Diamond and Jack Feinman. I only want to add as a background to the picture that those people were all before the court and the statement that was eventually obtained from Mr. Botes had so little reference to their case that he was not even called on by the Crown as a witness. Consequently he was detained because he was in the possession of information, and yet the information they elicited from him was of such a character that the Crown did not consider it worth while calling him as a witness at the trial of these people. This evidence was led not only in the presence of the representative of the Attorney-General but also in the presence of the official who was in charge of this whole investigation with reference to diamond offences in the North-West. My time is nearly finished and I would rather read this evidence as a whole. [Time limit.]

There is just one point I would like to raise with the Minister and it arises as a result of a statement that the Minister issued recently wherein he requested the municipality of Durban to extend its present Civilian Protective Services in regard to the Civilian Guard to the end of October. I would like at this stage, firstly to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Minister with regard to the praises he extended to this particular service in Durban which was conducted during this war, not for the sake of looking after the safety of Durban but in the national interest of the country. And, Sir, in undertaking that service in the national interest, the municipality of Durban have been put to considerable financial expenditure as a result of which there have always been negotiation between the Government on the one hand and the municipality on the other hand. The Minister did indicate in that statement that agreement had been reached in regard to a subsidy until the end of June. I would like the Minister to indicate, in view of the fact that he has asked that this service should be extended to the end of October, to what extent the Government is prepared to assist the municipality of Durban. I hope that in view of the trouble that existed in the past, in arriving at an agreement, and in view of the fact that we have been unable to come to an agreement in the matter, and as it would appear that agreement has been reached in so far as the extension of the service is concerned, the Minister will indicate to what extent the Government is prepared to extend further assistance to the municipality of Durban.

I will now read the evidence to which I referred, in the case of the Crown versus Nicolaas Botes. The advocate put this question to Mr. Botes—

Then he said what it was in connection with namely the cases of Kahn, Diamond and Feinman. The evidence reads further—

You were then in the charge office and said that you did not have the information? —Yes, then Rademeyer said they were going to take me to Kimberley and they would detain me until I spoke—they would keep me in custody until six months after peace had been signed.

They took you to Kimberley?—The same time.

Did they allow you to see your wife?—No, my wife was not at all well; she was under doctor’s treatment and she had to undergo an operation. I requested permission to visit them but he would not allow me to.

How did you get your clothes?—Police were sent to fetch them.

Were you given the opportunity of making any financial provision for your family? —No, I requested permission to go to the bank to inform the manager to give my wife money if she needed it, but Rademeyer said I could not see anybody.

Were you taken to Kimberley that evening?—That day we went through and at 6 p.m. we arrived there. On arrival they took everything away from me and locked me up in a cell.

Remember this is someone who was not condemned. This is a person who was detained for interrogation but he received the treatment meted out to a condemned prisoner.

Did they also take your cigarettes away? —Everything. I had my clothes and sleeping kit and a handkerchief and except for them I had nothing.

Were you allowed a shaving set?—No.

How long were you in that cell?—I arrived there on Saturday at 6 p.m. and 14 days after that I was released.

Disgraceful!

The advocate put the further question—

In August he was taken into custody, as hon. members will remember.

Except for the police, did you ever see other people in the cell?—No, except for the police I saw no private people; I requested to see a lawyer and was told that it was not permitted.

It sounds like Russia.

It goes on—

Did you tell the police that you were a man who suffered from high blood pressure? —I asked them whether they would give me a special cushion. I offered to pay anything for it. According to the specialist my head is very sensitive and I find it very difficult to lie comfortably without a special cushion.

You were prepared to pay for the cushion?—Yes, any amount.

Did you have money?—Yes, a few pounds.

You were in the cell for 14 days, were you given a bed?—No, I slept on the floor.

Disgraceful!

The question was put to him—

What month was it?—It was the 18th August in Kimberley.

Was it cold?—It was abnormally cold.

Did you have any conveniences apart from the blankets on which you had to sleep?—Absolutely nothing else.

It sounds like Siberia.

The following question is—

You asked for a cushion and this was refused?—Definitely.

You say it was very cold; were you allowed to sleep undisturbed at night?— No, not during the night.

Why not?—During the night at intervals of an hour or less one or two policemen came in and switched on the lights and looked round the cell and then went out again and slammed the door making a terrible noise, and then as I was about to go to sleep again, they came in again and so it went on right through the night.

Did this keep on for 14 days?—Yes.

Could you sleep in the night?—I suffer from insomnia and I could not sleep.

In those 14 days were you ever taken out for exercise or for a walk?—The only exercise I had was on the 12th day I was there.

What happened then?—I then asked Detective Grobbelaar to allow me to walk when he came to fetch me to go to the detective’s office and this request was granted, and I walked to the detective’s office.

Were you taken now and again to the detective’s office?—A few times, but always by motor.

When you arrived there did they interrogate you?—Yes, they asked me to make a statement and when I did not I was taken back to the cell.

Were you given any reading matter while you were in the cell?—I asked repeatedly for something to read. I said they could take my, food away and give me something to read.

Were you given something to read?—I hope I am not letting out secrets, but through other channels I managed to get a Bible and a “Kerkbode”.

This was smuggled to you by one of the police?—Yes.

Did you ask for something to read?— I repeatedly asked them to give me something to pass the time.

As regards food, did you ask for food from an hotel and offer to pay for it?— Yes, I did so.

What sort of food did they give you?— In the morning one spoonful of porridge.

With milk and sugar?—Just a little milk and sugar. In the morning I did not get early morning coffee and then with the porridge I got coffee. For lunch, about three slices of ordinary brown bread with half a cup of tea, and in the evening the same again as at lunch-time, that is to say two or three slices of ordinary bread and half a cup of tea. I may not eat the ordinary bread and I cannot drink tea. I repeatedly told them that I could not eat the bread and was also not allowed to drink tea.

You were forbidden under doctor’s orders to drink tea or eat the ordinary bread?—Yes, I have stomach trouble.

Was there ever a change in the meals? —On Sunday we got a little meat; I measured it and it was about the size of my thumb.

Anything else?—Then a small helping of vegetables, to this day I don’t know what they were. That was on Sunday. Then on the following Thursday two eggs were sent in with the two slices of bread, but there was another fellow in another cell and he was sick.

He then said that he sent the eggs to the man who was sick—

Did you find it easy to walk?—Grobbelaar can vouch for this, I swayed in the street.

Did he have to help you?—Practically.

On the 14th day you made a statement, why?—It was the only way of being released from imprisonment and going home.

The police went to see you at Upington; have they now made provision for you? —I asked Grobbelaar what the position was and to come to the house, and he said: “We release people and they must make their own provision.”

And then just this bit—

Thus here you have officials who apparently did everything in their power to be helpful; but in all probability there must be instructions issued. People who want to be friendly cannot at the same time act as inhumanly as this man was treated. I assert that a man who is detained under those circumstances, even though it is a case where the Minister is justified in detaining him for interrogation, cannot be otherwise treated than as an ordinary uncondemned prisoner, in other words, just as a person who is not yet condemned. Now I just want to refer the Minister to his own regulations. What is the treatment afforded to a person who is arrested for a crime, who is detained pending his trial? He has not yet been examined, and it is one of the basic principles of our criminal law that a person is deemed innocent until such time as his guilt has been proved. What is the treatment to be meted out to him? In the first place I will refer to the Act itself. Article 17 reads—

Therefore when a person who is arrested for committing a crime, he is entitled, until such time as he is condemned, to demand to be able to get food and bedding from outside, and it was refused this person who was not even arrested as a result of his having committed a crime. [Time limit.]

I want to revert to the story of the man who took the wrong turning, as the judge says here. He calls him: “The first citizen of Brakpan who took the wrong turning”. I should not have gone into this were it not for the astonishing answer given by the Minister today in connection with this matter. The Minister said very clearly here that this is a political matter. He clearly signified that if the United Party had been in the majority in Brakpan, in the town council, they would have re-appointed the man. He said that the Nationalist Party have acted similarly in the past, in other words, he is now turning it into a political matter. I have no strong objection to the fact that he should appoint a Party supporter, but my question to him is why he should appoint a person like this, “the first citizen of Brakpan who took the wrong turning”? He says here: “Otherwise Mr. Mitchell has a very good record”. But it is precisely in this matter, where he is appointed, that he has a bad and black record. I am once more obliged to read a few extracts from the court case. For the rest of the sitting of the board, he was suspended by the court. I will read further from the Judge’s remarks—

In other words he acted improperly—

The Judge says—

Thus in this respect he did not follow “the path of integrity”, but on the contrary a dishonourable path. Then the Judge says—

In other words, the Judge declares here that Mr. Mitchell was prejudiced in his decision. In other words, he was not unbiased. To wit he proved that he was biased. Then the Judge says further—

We must remember that the word “scandalous” is a serious term for a Judge to use. I believe that there are members on the other side of the House—I do not know how many—but I believe that there are members on the other side who still have some feeling for right and justice and for efficient administration in the country.

For clean government

Now I want to say this. Say for example that the man who was ejected was a Nationalist and we raised objection thereto. How would the Minister not have quoted from this finding to us, and then he would have said to us: “You want me to appoint the man whom the Judge described as ‘dishonourable’”? But today he pushes it aside. What I want to know is this: Who put pressure to bear on him; who recommended to him that Mitchell should be re-appointed? He is now hiding behind the Town Council of Brakpan; yes, they have not moved a finger to prevent Mitchell from being appointed. I take it that the town council members of Brakpan are honourable men who did not expect the Minister to do such a dishonourable thing and to appoint the man who shortly before was branded by the Judge as somebody who behaved “dishonourably”.

But the public held meetings of protest.

Can anyone possessing a feeling of decency imagine that the Minister would come and eject a man who has a clean record and then appoint Mr. Mitchell? The Minister says that otherwise he has a clean record, but he puts out a man whose record is unblemished and he appoints a man who does not possess a clean record. I say that there is somthing behind this matter, the cause of which we would like to know. We are not satisfied. I appeal to hon. members on the other side who also have a feeling of decency, to tell me whether they think it is right that the Minister should go ahead and act in this way. Can there be any confidence in the liquor licensing boards which are appointed by the Minister if such things happen? What guarantee has he that tomorrow there will not again be an unworthy deed committed by the same man? No, the hon. Minister’s defence is very werk. He is completely at sea and says that because Mitchell has a good record otherwise, he will appoint him again. He is appointing him on a case in connection with which he has a dishonourable record. There are just a few other things which the Minister has not replied to, and I insist on the Minister’s informing us what the position is. His Government will never tell us what they are going to do with people who furnished false information during the war to the Government, those cases where it has been proved to their own satisfaction that false information was given. The Minister refuses to say anything about that. We still want to know whether they are simply going to allow those people to walk about freely and say to them: “You gave us false information; you have received your reward; proof has now been furnished that that evidence was false, but you can go”. I would like to know what the Minister intends doing. Hon. members in the House spoke about our viewpoint in connection with acts of violence. I thought the objection against the Hon. Leader of the Opposition was always that he warned against acts of violence and gangsterdom. He uttered an early warning. We on this side, both in this House and outside and in our newspapers, warned time and time again against acts of violence. We urged our supporters to have nothing to do with acts of violence. Now hon. members come along and ask us whether we still protest against acts of violence.

They attacked me for that.

Yes, they said here that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition first of all supported the Ossewa-Brandwag and now he is accusing them of gangsterdom. Time and again the Leader of the Opposition issued a warning against acts of violence and gangsterdom and we did so as well. The Minister of Justice accuses us today of having delivered vicious speeches in this period and of having incited people against the Government.

Quite right.

Can the Minister not draw a line between a political opponent who attacks his Government and people who on the sly have incited the kaffirs and the coloureds against the white man, against the Government and the country? Does he not differentiate between the two? Can he not see a difference between his political opponent who openly expresses his opinion of the Government on public platforms and the man who quietly and slyly goes and incites the non-European population and antagonises them against the European population? Does he not see any difference in that? They have done nothing to prevent those dangerous happenings taking place. The Minister’s own leader, the present Prime Minister, issued a warning as early as 1929 and he said—

Those were the present Prime Minister’s words in 1929. He said—

[Time limit.]

When I spoke last I said that the position of the people detained by the department for questioning could be more or less compared with the position of people who in the ordinary course of the adminis tration of justice are detained for trial or as witnesses. The law prescribes that people so detained are entitled to food and clothing and to visits from their legal advisers from outside. The prison regulations provide for that, and I would like to mention a few of those regulations. We find, for example, that Regulation No. 605 provides that such a person’s legal adviser may visit him, something that was refused in the case of Botes. Regulation 608 provides for bedding, which was also refused in the case of Botes. Regulation 609 says that none of the person’s property may be taken away except dangerous weapons or articles that may be used to facilitate his escape. No. 612 provides that he may smoke; but this was denied Botes. No. 613 lays down that reading matter may be received by him, but this too was denied Botes. In every respect we find that the man detained for examination in this case did not even get the treatment that a criminal would get when awaiting trial. This is the least that such a person may expect, and I should like to know under what authority the Minister acted in dealing with these people in this way, because it does not redound to the credit of his department even if they did this to a prisoner who had already been convicted. It is a very serious matter, and there was an occasion when the Appeal Court had reason to express itself on the treatment of persons detained for trial, because such treatment as was meted out to them corresponded to a certain extent with the treatment Botes received. I refer to the case of Whitaker versus Roos and Bateman heard by the Appeal Court in 1912. This man’s complaint was that before conviction he was not permitted (1) to take any exercise except two hours a day. In the case of Botes he had one hour’s exercise for the first time after 12 days; (2) that they were not allowed to smoke for 12 days; (3) that they were not allowed to receive newspapers; (4) that they were refused an interview with their legal advisers. I have already shown this also happened in this case. (5) That other articles besides those that are prohibited were taken from them. Then (6) the person complained that “he was tormented by the sound of corporal punishment” that was given to other offenders. In the same way in this case it was complained that the person could not get any rest at night because every hour people were coming in so that he was not allowed to rest. What did the judge say in that case I have referred to? I want to say that this is not a matter that affects this side of the House or that side of the House. It is a matter that affects the citizens of the country because it affects our administration of justice, which we have always regarded with pride and we are exceptionally jealous that nothing should be done to endanger its foundations. In his judgment Lord De Villiers said—

In this case we are concerned with a person who was detained and who after 14 days made a statement in which he admitted his guilt. I do not want to say anything here about the offence he committed. This opinion of the judge’s has also no relation to the nature of the crime. It has to do with the question of the treatment of a person before he has been convicted of the offence. I should also like to refer to a remark by Sir James Rose-Innes in regard to people who were concerned in sabotage. Inter alia, he said—

The person may be a criminal or someone who wanted to use dynamite against his fellowmen, but that has nothing to do with the requirement that a man’s personal rights may not be impinged on before judgment actually is given. Lord De Villiers stated further—

I assert that the methods employed in the case of Botes closely approximate the third degree and the methods of the Gestapo and the Ogpu, which are unknown in a civilised country like South Africa. I have presented the facts and the Minister of Justice is unable to state that those facts are not correct. I have checked the facts as far as possible, and I say that so far as I cap check them they are correct. These things must have occurred in pursuance of instructions, because the officials themselves were sympathetic, and I say that this reveals a state of affairs that we may not tolerate in our country. If these facts are in any way true then it is a matter that must be immediately rectified. We have always had confidence in our administration of justice in this country, and one of the foundations of our administration of justice is that a person must be regarded as innocent until his guilt has been established by a court. He may not be punished before he has been convicted. A definite encroachment has been made here of what must be regarded as a sacred and inviolable principle of our administration of justice. I have stated I appeal to hon. members on the other side who have any sense of justice still, that they should not allow the foundations of our administration of justice to be tampered with. Their sense of justice must surely have received a shock by these revelations, and they will agree with me that we dare not allow conduct of this nature to occur in our country, and that there should be immediate restitution in respect of the injustice that was done, and also that those persons should be punished who were responsible for the instructions that people held for questioning should be treated in this way. This is certainly not the first instance. This is the instance that I checked, but my information is that there are other cases besides this. Now I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is. If this is the way he is going to apply this regulation and this principle then I maintain that it is high time that War Measure No. 57 should immediately be repealed.

I wish just briefly to repeat what I said a little while ago. I want to deal with this matter on its merits and not from a Party viewpoint. Hon. members on the other side have the right to make as much propaganda with it as they wish. My duty is to deal with the matter objectively here. We have here to deal with a case that is known to all the people in that neighbourhood. It was known to everyone in that neighbourhood that this person who was a member of the Licensing Board proposed his brother’s application. This individual also did not immediately attend the session. In the first instance he asked the opinion of the magistrate, who did not tell him that he might not sit, though he advised him not to. Then he consulted the Secretary for Justice.

And they all told him not to sit.

They did not tell him that he might not sit. They told him it was a question of whether it was advisable whether he should sit, and from that angle they advised him not to sit. He also took other advice to the effect that he was appointed, and that he was perfectly entitled to take his seat. Everyone knew that the case would be a test case.

Can you tell us who gave that advice?

I do not know that, but that is his affair.

Why did he not submit a sworn declaration to the court?

I do not know. I only know that he took advice and he must then have thought he was entitled to sit. If he did not think that he would not have attended a session, because then he would have known that he would have spoilt the whole case. He made a mistake. But everyone knew that the matter would go to the court. The Judge strongly criticised his action.

He said it was disgraceful.

I must accept what the Judge said. He gave his finding on this one point. The Judge only suspended him on this one point, as far as his having sat is concerned, but he did not do more. He did not condemn his action in connection with any other matter. The Judge only said that he acted wrongly in connection with having sat on that one occasion.

But the court could do nothing more, and the Judge said that in that case the man had acted disgracefully.

Yes, on that point he was punished. The Judge made no further suggestion that the man ought to resign or that he was not competent to sit. If the Judge would have done that then he would not have Said that a person should only be suspended in that one case.

But the Judge could not do that because only that one case was before him.

Although it would have been much better if he had not sat he did so openly and honourably and why should we go beyond the punishment that the Judge imposed on him?

But there was no further application.

The Judge suspended him and left it at that. He made no further observations. Everyone knew that this person was appointed for a year and the Judge passed no reflection at all on the rest of his conduct. Nor did the town council at that time make any objection to it. The first time they made an objection was in December when he was re-appointed. He had been punished in connection with the one case, but there was no suggestion that he should not attend any further sitting, or that he could not again be appointed. The further facts of the case are that this man had done public service for a long time and had behaved well. On this one point his judgment was wrong; but he did it openly, and why should we now continue to punish him? I think this is a complete answer to this case that members on the other side have mentioned.

But if a man has such a weak judgment that it is possible for him to make such a blunder, it must be obvious that he is not fit to serve on such a board.

But even a magistrate cannot say that he might not do that. He acted in the open and he made a mistake as far as his judgment was concerned. For that he was rebuked and punished, and it is not for us to punish him further. It was not a question that was clear and there was no previous decision. After that finding there was not the slightest objection made against him from any quarter to his continuing to serve on the Licensing Board. No one asked him to resign. It was only when he was re-appointed they made an objection.

They did not recommend him again.

No, the town council did not recommend him. He was re-appointed, and that is the whole explanation and the reply as far as that case is concerned. I may not have convinced members opposite, but I myself am absolutely convinced about the position. Now I want to come to the point that has been broached by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). I shall not discuss the facts and I shall only deal with the matter generally. As far as the general principles of justice are concerned, I agree with him. I have not the facts before me, and therefore I do not want to go exactly into the merits of the case nor to go into those facts. I shall go into the facts later, because I have never had them before me. I wish to confine myself more particularly to the general principle. Let me admit at once that no one likes that sort of regulation, and that sort of measure. No one wants them in normal times, and it was only the state of emergency in the country that brought us to the stage of instituting those regulations. The police have acted absolutely well in terms of the regulations. The hon. member is now pointing out that those regulations are very rigorous, but he loses sight of the circumstances under which they were enforced. He is judging them from the angle of ordinary circumstances of the country, and that is absolutely wrong. He must remember that the country was passing through a period of war, and in a period of war we have to deal with martial law. He therefore should not compare those regulations with the normal regulations in peace time but he should compare them with the regulations we would have under martial law, and which other countries apply under martial law.

Where it is stated in Regulation 57 that power has been granted to treat people in this way when they are detained?

The regulation is perfectly clear that such a person can be detained as we have done.

No, that is not there.

The hon. member will find I am correct. These regulations were introduced in connection with sabotage. We had a very serious state of affairs in the country. The police knew well what people were involved in this sabotage. They knew where to find those people, but they knew that they would also involve other people in danger if they followed the usual course. In the meanwhile dynamite was used.

But in this case there was nothing of that sort.

I am coming to that. The object of the regulations was to deal with the very difficult and serious situation in the country. The regulations related to sabotage, and they had to be strictly applied, and they were also absolutely effective. They complied with our requirements. Because we published those regulations at that time and carried them out we saved many people in the country from being the victims of violence.

We are not talking about that now. You are now setting up skittles in order to bowl them over.

No, I am not doing that. It was done because the war policy of the Government was at stake. We could not allow the war policy of the Government to be wrecked, and the enemies of the country and of the Government to be assisted.

But who complained about that?

If the hon. member admits that it makes it easier for me to reply. Then I come to the question of diamonds. I want to say at once that the point has been rightly mentioned by the hon. member for Fauresmith, and I do not take exception to him having done so. I will also see that these regulations are not applied except where it is necessary. In this case they were applied because there was theft of diamonds.

Not theft, there was an infraction of the diamond law.

I shall give you information about that. We discovered that not only were diamonds being sold illegally on a large scale but that those diamonds were being sent out of the country. We found that the diamonds were going to North Africa, from where it would have been very easy to transfer them to enemy countries. We knew that the enemy was short of diamonds for industrial purposes.

Was there any indication that these were industrial diamonds?

Yes.

Where has there been any suggestion that these were industrial diamonds? No such suggestion has ever been made.

I admit that. When we discovered this matter, before we knew who the accused were we knew that diamonds were being smuggled to North Africa on a big scale, and from there they could easily get into the hands of Germany. We did not know whether they were industrial diamonds or not. We knew that diamonds had gone out and that they could get into the hands of the enemy, and to prevent that, and perfectly rightly, after thorough consideration we made this regulation applicable.

Was there any theft?

No, it was I.D.B.

They were unlawfully in the possession of diamonds but it was not theft?

They came into the possession of diamonds in a secret way in order to smuggle them to the North. We had a strong suspicion that the diamonds were being conveyed to Turkey, from where they could easily go to Germany.

Did they go by air to North Africa?

No, I do not want to talk about that. We could not know what sort of diamonds they were. The risk of industrial diamonds was there. What is more, it is not only industrial diamonds that can be used for industrial purposes.

How can the other diamonds be used for industrial purposes?

It is true industrial diamonds are much cheaper, but the other diamonds can also be used for industrial purposes. If the hon. member had thought of that he would not have made this attack. We must take that into account.

But were these diamonds conveyed to the North by American or British aircraft?

We knew that the best way to stop it was to take action in our own country, and aucordingly we did so. If we had not taken those steps diamonds would have been exported on a large scale, and those diamonds would eventually have gone to Germany, where they were highly necessary for war purposes.

But tell us what subversive organisation there was to export the diamonds.

Tell Us whether one of those diamonds was discovered beyond the borders of the Union.

Yes.

Where?

Many of these diamonds were never recovered by us.

But did you get them beyond the borders of the Union?

Those that we did get were in this country, but the fact is that we found people in the country with great quantities of diamonds in their possession, and I believe it is certain if we had not taken those steps industrial diamonds would have been exported on a big scale, and they would eventually have found their way to Germany I said that the hon. member for Fauresmith apparently did not know this or otherwise he would not have mentioned this matter. No one is more keen to maintain the law of the land than this Government. But we must take into consideration that we are dealing with a period of martial law. In a time of war strong action has to be taken in such matters. I say that in comparison with martial law, and in com parison with what has been done in other countries where martial law prevails, the Government of the Union has acted leniently. I think we all should accept that a Government has no right to deal gently with people who assist the enemy and especially with people who help the enemy to make ammunition and to kill our own lads with it.

When a little while ago I mentioned communistic agitation amongst the natives the Minister of Justice stated that they were German agents or Nazis who were engaged in this agitation and that he had either put them in gaol or interned them. The Minister also issued a challenge, stating that we on this side could mention not a single instance where a person was guilty of agitation of this character amongst the natives. Last year I brought to the attention of the Minister in this House that Senator Basner was personally one of the causes of the rebellion of the natives in the Pietersburg district. The Minister is aware that this is the case. At that time the Minister made no reply. Subsequently I mentioned the matter for the second time, and again the Minister ran away and gave no reply. Now for the third time I make the allegation that Senator Basner was responsible for that rising, for that rebellion, it was not a question of an ordinary riot. It was a rebellion, a question of sedition or of high treason that was in progress in the Northern Transvaal and he was responsible for it. The documents are in the hands of the Minister. He is in possession of the proofs, and nevertheless no steps were taken against that man when he allowed the natives to rebel against the white man. Nothing was done to him and he is still holding meetings and collecting money for medical aid in Russia. We protest against that. I say the Minister knows that Senator Basner is guilty. He has the documents in his Department, and he does not even give a reply. Then he comes here and says that we cannot mention a single case. The last persons who were guilty in South Africa of a rebellion of this sort were hanged at Slagter’s Nek, but this person is allowed to remain at large and to continue with his meetings. The question of the diamonds has been broached here. It is very interesting. Arrests were made under War Measure No. 57 of 1941. The Minister made the accusation here today that those people apparently sent the diamonds to Germany. I entirely agree with him that he should stop that sort of illegal action. But has the Minister properly investigated it? Has he not investigated whether the largest diamond dealers in South Africa have provided Germany with diamonds during the war? Has it occurred to him to institute an enquiry of that sort? The information has been given to me by a well-informed source that some of our largest diamond dealers sent diamonds to North Africa and Turkey by air. It was undertaken by the biggest diamond buyers who made a good sideline out of it during the war. Not one of those individuals has been taken into custody. The people who were taken into custody transgressed the ordinary diamond laws of the country. They ought to be prosecuted. But if we use war measures to apprehend such persons they are still entitled to the protection afforded by the ordinary law of the country. We cannot do otherwise than protest strongly that when such persons are taken into custody they are treated under the war measures as has been indicated. We have our courts in the country and before those persons are punished they should first be found guilty by the courts. Accused persons are, however, being wrongly treated outside the scope of the law. This is a leaf out of the book of Siberia we are applying in practice. I want to ask the Minister whether he can give any reasons why persons who are still interned—there are still a large number of Afrikaners in the camps—are not released? Here is a letter, and I have made representations in connection with a man who has already been five years in a camp. He is a German who is not naturalised. He is not in good health. Together with an Afrikaner, his brother-in-law, he had a garage business. He is in the camp and the result is that his business has been closed and his whole family has become a burden on his brother-in-law. The man is an invalid and has already been operated on three times in the General Hospital, Pretoria. In the camp he is continuously in hospital. He was in South-West Africa from 1925 and in the Union from 1931. In 1937 he applied for naturalisation but it was refused because he was not completely fluent in both official languages. When the war broke out he was interned because technically he was still a German subject. The war against Germany is over. Why do we still keep these people in the camps? Can the Minister give any reason? It is not only that these people are being quite unjustly detained but it also involves the country in considerable expense in feeding them and in keeping them in the camp. They can be sent back to industrial life and to the work of producing. I feel that something must be done in the matter. Why is South Africa always more afraid than other countries? Why are they releasing these people in Britain and rescinding the war measures, while here we have not abandoned the war measures to any degree at all, as if we were still in real war danger. Then another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the position in the magistrate’s court at Pretoria. Complaints are frequently made by individuals that when they are summoned to give evidence in the court they are ordered to appear at 10 o’clock …

May I remind the hon. member that there is a vote “Magistrate’s Courts”.

I should like to comment on what the Minister has stated. He has attempted to evade the first complaint. He has stated that these cases do fall under a war measure. I do not want to analyse his reply in detail, but I ask: Where are the acts of violence against individuals where is the theft; where is the damage to property? Supposing there was the intention of harming the war effort, not the effect: The measure does not say, the effect of which will be to hamper the war effort, but the intention must have been there on the part of Botes to hamper the war effort and he must have been guilty of the crime. The Minister must show that Botes’ intention was to hamper the war effort. Otherwise it does not fall under this war measure. He can alter the war measure, but so long as this is not done the Minister is not entitled to say that is has been rightly carried out. I do not want to take the point further. That is the Minister’s defence. He is landed with it. It is, however, not the only case. The Minister will also no doubt say that the theft of petrol coupons was also committed with the intention of hindering the war effort. Very well, but he then has to go further. If a loaf is stolen out of a baker’s shop it can also be said that that harms the war effort. Additional police must be maintained. Fewer police would be necessary if no one stole and more people could be sent off to fight. In that way there would be less for the ordinary administration but more for the war. That is the nature of the Minister’s defence on this point. But then I turn to the second charge, and there the Minister has preserved what may be a sanctified silence. Now I want to ask a relevant question. Assume for a moment that this is a case in which the regulation might well be applied. Suppose that is so. Does he approve that under the circumstances a person should be treated in this way before any guilt is proved. Does he approve of that or not? Assume the facts are right and this is the correct position. Then I put thé pertinent question: Does he approve this conduct or not? The second question is this. Is it an instruction by his Department or by him that these people should be treated in this way, yes or no? And if that is the case, there is a third question: Under what powers? The Minister has stated it is in the regulations. I make him a present of his regulations and I ask him to show that Regulation 57 of 1941 may be so applied that a person who is held for interrogation may be placed in a cell alone, with no exercise, that he may not say goodbye to his wife, that he may make no arrangements for her support, that he may not smoke, that he gets no bed and has to sleep on the cement floor. I ask how the Minister can justify that. It is now late, but I have intentionally mentioned this this afternoon, and I hope the Minister will seize the opportunity to go into the matter carefully so that he will be in a position tomorrow to make a defence which cannot be so simply and so easily torn to shreads. If that is the way of thinking of the high priest of justice in our country, that he may come and argue in this way, then I say God save South Africa.

I move—

Agreed to

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 25th May.