On behalf of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), I move the amendments printed in the Votes and Proceedings—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 10, put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (2) A Voters’ List shall be divided into—
   1. (a) a section containing the names of white women, which shall be the first section thereof;
   2. (b) a section containing the names of white males, which shall be the second section thereof; and
   3. (c) a section containing the names of non-Europeans, if there are nonEuropeans who are entitled to registration in the division concerned.

and in line 17, page 8, after “shall,” to insert “subject to the provisions of subsection (2),”.

I second.

I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 17,

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior, seconded by Mr. Higgerty, an amendment in the Afrikaans version, which did not occur in the English version, was made in Clause 17.

Remaining amendment in Clause 17 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I want to come back to the reply given yesterday by the Minister of Justice in connection with the representations made to him by this side of the House concerning the combating of Communist propaganda in South Africa, especially where it is directed towards the native and coloured population of the country. The Minister once more gave the same two replies which he gave last year. The first reply was, “What about the Nazi propaganda in South Africa?” His second reply was, “Bring me the necessary evidence.” As far as his first reply is concerned, I can only say that it is an old and well recognised principle that two wrongs have never yet made a right and the Minister should not try to evade his responsibilities by coming forward with such a ridiculous argument. In the first place I want to refer to the impression he tried to create that we in South Africa approve of violence. The Minister knows that the leader of our party and we on this side in our public speeches have continually warned against sabotage. We have the right, however, to ask the Minister today, seeing that he is so concerned about acts of violence committed during the past few years, why he is protecting certain people. We are entitled to ask him why persons attacking other persons are not brought before a court but are sent to an internment camp. We are entitled to ask him why in the case of the thefts at Port Elizabeth, the person who was behind the whole affair, was sent to an internment camp, whereas the other men who acted under his orders had to go to prison. We have the right to put those questions to the Minister when he makes use of the kind of argument he did. The Minister says that we as an Opposition must prove in which way the Communists are breaking the law. I want to tell the Minister that he should not try to shift the responsibility on to us. This side of the House has not the power to take action. The Minister has his police and his detectives. He should ask them to take action. He should not try to shift his responsibility on to us. I now want to refer the Minister to what happened last year. I want to refer him to the Hansard of 30th May last year when I got up here and gave the Minister certain information in regard to the evidence given by the Secretary for Native Affairs before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I want to remind the Minister that the Secretary for Native Affairs stated that political agitators were working amongst the natives. He said—

I now want to ask the Minister a question and he should reply to it. I want to know what steps he has taken in consequence of the statement made by the Secretary for Native Affairs. It was brought to his notice. We have done our duty. He says we must submit facts to him. Well, we did so. What has the Minister done as a result of that? Did he go to the Secretary for Native Affairs and ask him to supply him with the necessary information? Did he take steps in consequence of the information he received from this side of the House. I furthermore want to refer to the report published by the Secretary for Native Affairs during the present year. In this report we find the following on page 24—

Exploitation. Instigation. The Minister asked us to bring evidence. There is the evidence. Here you have prima facie evidence. I want to ask the Minister whether he took any steps last year. And now I want to ask him whether he is going to take any steps in view of this second warning by the Secretary for Native Affairs. This House and the people and the country want a reply from the Minister. I still want to go further. The Minister says that we must bring proofs and submit evidence. I now come with the evidence from his own side of the House. I refer the Minister to a meeting held at Green Point and attended by the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). According to the press report the following took place—

There we have it from his own people, from his own member of Parliament sitting on his side of the House. I again ask the Minister whether he took any steps in view of what was said at that meeting? Did the Minister try to find out what was being said at those Communist meetings and what can be done about it? Warnings are issued by members of the audience at a meeting of the United Party and complaints come from the audience that nothing is being done about it. One of his own members of Parliament admits that. Seeing that the Minister now tells us that we should submit evidence, I ask him what he has done. Did he take any action? Did he go and see the hon. member for Green Point and did he tell him: “Supply me with more information”? He should not come here and try to shift the onus on to us. He is the man who should take action and that is his duty. I want to ask the Minister whether he is completely blind to the agitation which is taking place in South Africa, especially among the natives. Is he unable to see it? Does he want to come and tell us that he knows nothing about it, that his police force knows nothing about it and that his Department does not know what is going on? Does he want to come here today and play the innocent? Surely he reads the news in the newspapers and surely the pamphlets which are distributed are brought to his notice. He knows about the bus incidents on the Reef which were the result of Communist agitation. Does he want to say that there is nothing going on? Or does he refuse to take notice of it? Does he know about the meetings in the rural areas? Does he know that teachers in various villages in our rural towns are now being used to spread Communist propaganda? I want to tell him that in my own town so-called debates are taking place by coloured associations and that the subjects of debate are whether the coloured people will obtain equal rights with the Europeans in South Africa and whether that should be brought about by means of revolution or evolution. Does he know nothing about those things? It was brought to the notice of his police force. Why is no action taken? What justification does he have for saying that no propaganda is being spread in the country? I am bringing these matters to his notice. There are furthermore the incidents to which reference was made yesterday. The photographs are there to prove it. There is the report in “Die Transvaler” of the 12th May. The photographs appear there. Pamphlets were distributed to the people, reading—

Does the Minister pretend that this is something we need not worry about, that this is a matter which does not deserve his serious attention? He should know about this if he has a police force keeping their ears and eyes open; he should know how on that day the natives in Johannesburg were supplied with red flags with the hammer and sickle. Did his Department or his police force take any steps in regard to the pamphlets distributed in Johannesburg? He should not come here now and try to shift the responsibility off his shoulders by making jokes, as he did yesterday. We are not satisfied and the people are not satisfied and neither are members on his own side satisfied. Steps should be taken. Will the Minister discontinue his protection of those people, will he discontinue being the patron not only of the Friends of the Soviet Union but also of the Communist Party in South Africa? [Time limit.]

The consideration of the Minister’s vote provides an occasion upon which we may fittingly consider the question of responsibility for prosecutions in the Union. Originally the South Africa Act was so drafted as to place the weighty responsibility of the administration of justice in the hands of a Minister of State, “save and except all powers, authorities and functions relating to the prosecution of crimes and offences which shall in each Province be vested in that officer to be appointed by the Govemor-General-in-Council and styled Attorney-General of the Province.” The original provision placed the administration of justice in the hands of a Minister subject to the above reservation. It meant that the Minister was to be responsible for the general administration of justice but he was not to interfere in any way with the discretion, the absolute discretion of the Attorney-General in the prosecution of crimes. Now, a change was introduced in the Act of Union under which that reservation was struck out and the Minister is now solely responsible, but this change has not been for the benefit of the people of South Africa. There are the gravest possible criticisms of the suppression of prosecutions in con-nection with very serious crimes, and I propose to deal with some of them this morning in the hope that the Minister will indicate what he, as the responsible Minister, proposes to do to meet the criticisms that are being made increasingly throughout South Africa. We have a case which I recently raised in the House in which an Indian stabbed to death another Indian named Shaikh, on the pavement in front of the Avalon Theatre in the presence of a number of witnesses. It is stated that without any fear of contradiction it can be proved that there were 17 eye-witnesses to this murder, and that the police took statements from most of them. It appears that the assailant and the murdered man were both in the habit of taking out a young girl, a coloured girl, I believe, and that when the assailant called to take her to the cinema he found that she had already gone with his rival. It is stated by those who were present that the assailant waited outside on the pavement. He drew a long knife out of his pocket and boasted to a number of loungers outside the theatre that Shaikh would never take the girl out again because he was going to stab him as he came out of the theatre. He proceeded to do so, as soon as Shaikh emerged from the theatre with the girl, and Shaikh, having been stabbed in the back, had to be taken to St. Sidan’s Hospital at 10.30 p.m. and died there at 7 a.m. on the following day. After hiding for a day or two he gave himself up to the police. A charge of murder was entered against him but the police seemed to be almost impotent. In reply to questions in this House I have been able to learn they did not obtain a single shred of evidence and their attitude is shown by what followed. This incident occurred in December, 1942, but it was not until July, 1943, that an inquest was even held, and long before that the prosecutor indicated that the charge against the assailant, who had given himself up, was withdrawn, but that the investigation must proceed. That was in January, 1943. But as early as March when the question of this man getting an exit permit to go to India was under consideration by the Department of the Interior, the police, if you please, wrote to the Department of the Interior to say, “Under the present circumstances there would be no objection to the issue of an exit permit.” The purpose of the exit permit was “a visit to India for further studies,” and that visit is going on to this day. The man has never returned and if he is wise he will not attempt to return. But I am dealing with the actions of the police. Are the public to sit still with folded hands to listen to nonsense of that kind written by sober-minded members of the police force? A man who is accused of murder who in the presence of 17 people stabbed a man to death, is now given a clean bill of health by the police of the very district in which this occurred, who say that under the circumstances there is no objection to the issue of an exit permit? Is it to be wondered at that the Minister tells us that no evidence is available in the case of a crime committed under these circumstances? But the information that is readily available from other sources is that his father, the father of the assailant, approached the police to ascertain if they would drop the case, and they agreed to do so. Murder! A case of wilful and premeditated murder, and they agreed to drop it if the family of the dead man would drop the matter. I have had it from several responsible quarters that negotiations went on between these parties, and at a certain stage the relations of the dead man withdrew from the case and gave no further evidence and no further assistance in the elucidation of this matter. But surely that seems a most irregular and improper method of closing a case of this kind. If that is to be the attitude of the police, if the prosecution of a murder case is to depend upon whether the relatives of the dead man would like the accused prosecuted or not, there is going to be a very serious state of affairs in this country. There is the information that these people negotiated and bargained for a certain sum of money to be paid. The persons concerned have been named, the persons who benefited can be named, and yet the police are apparently the only people who profess to know nothing about it. Then there are other cases, not as serious in their anti-social effect as that of murder, but cases of a very serious kind that have occurred in which no prosecution has ever been undertaken. [Time limit.]

In the course of this debate a great deal has been made of the supposed stirring up of the native population against the European population by Communist agitators. I should not have thought it worth while intervening in the debate since that is a familiar argument in this House and I think everyone with a little experience knows how empty and stupid it is. I think anybody who has any political experience is aware of what the Opposition means when it talks about propaganda, particularly among the native or non-European population. It means, first of all, they are still going to hammer away at race conflicts as the main political plank in their platform, when they have very little else to build on, and that they are determined to label any unrest among the native population as the result of political propaganda, for their own politicai ends. But I only intervene in the debate because yesterday the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) made some quite amazing statements in this House which ought not to go unchallenged. He said, in reply to a statement by the Minister that the Communist Party as a party had not broken the Law and had therefore not come under the Department in their propaganda, that Senator Basner had been responsible for rebellions or at least guilty of seditious conduct in the Northern Transvaal. I think that is a most reprehensible sort of thing to say in this House. There ought to be a limit to the allegations made by members of the Opposition, and even extravagant statements ought to have some foundation in fact. As a matter of fact, the House knows very well there was no rebellion in the Northern Transvaal last year, and as far as seditious conduct is concerned I can inform the House that while there was a good deal of unrest in the Northern Transvaal, due to land troubles in that area, Senator Basner himself was most insistent that the Government should appoint a commission of enquiry to investigate the nature of that unrest. To label action of that kind as seditious and the stirring up of rebellion is, as I say, utterly reckless and irresponsible. But it is of a piece with the whole of this agitation, which is designed for two things. One is to stir up the native population, the sort of thing we are constantly accused of doing. The only people responsible for race conflict in this country are the members of the Opposition. Their propaganda is the sort of thing that is putting the races in this country at one another’s throats. The speeches from the Opposition benches which too often unfortunately go out unchallenged from this House, create amongst our native population first of all a sense of frustration because they feel they have nothing to hope for if ever our Opposition friends attain power in this country, and a sense of the most acute fear lest people holding the views of the Opposition ever do get into power. It is a fact that they do not know, that the industrial development of this country, the economic development of this country, has already made this party an anachronism. There is not the slightest chance of their ever getting political power so long as their approach to our political problems is what it is today. The whole progress of industrialism—and that industrialism has come to stay and is going to develop rapidly, we hope—makes then approach to the situation completely unreal. The size of their party already shows that, and it is going to dwindle steadily on their present platform. Unfortunately, however, the native population do not know all that, and therefore they suffer from the sort of panic the Jews suffered from in Germany at the thought that these people may get into power, because they feel that what the Germans did to the Jews will happen to them. The native population, as I said, are not to know that these people will not get into power; hence what unrest there is is occasioned by the things said here and published in our papers, challenging the right of our native population to develop, and challenging their right to opportunities for freedom. It was to me an interesting circumstance that one of the evidences of the effects of communist propaganda which the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) put to this House yesterday, was a cry to the African population that now that the war was over they should fight for freedom in this land. We have been fighting for freedom for the last five years. We lined the native population up behind us to fight for freedom, and we are supporting their own fight for freedom here as we have supported the fight for freedom in the world. But our friends there do not want freedom in this country for anyone but their own small group; that is what they are aiming at. They do not want an extension of freedom for anyone. But particularly are they going to fight against an extension of freedom to people who are now without that freedom which we regard as the right of everyone under democracy. They are asking for the limitation of such freedom as our native population still retains, and they are using this argument that the people who are supporting the right of the Africans to develop to become free in this land, are sweeping up these Africans against the Europeans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who have supported freedom for the African in this land are the people who have prevented trouble. They have given the African population some hope and have thus maintained their loyalty to the community. I only say these things because of another point which I want to bring up. I do want to ask the Minister to watch another type of propaganda, the type of propaganda that is designed to drive the Europeans and nonEuropeans into a clash. I have lived in Johannesburg since 1920, which I think is considerably longer than the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). All those years I have been interested in the position of the native population there. When I was first interested in that situation the whole of the western area was almost entirely native. There were practically no Europeans there. I ask any hon. member in this House who has been there as long as I have if that is not the truth.

It is.

Yes.

There was a day when the whole of Western Johannesburg —Sophiatown, a bit of Martindale and the Western Native Township—was entirely native. Steadily the Europeans have penetrated into that area in spite of natives being there. They came in, built houses and settled down, and then began the old familiar story: We must separate the Europeans from the natives; these natives must get out. That is the situation that has steadily been built up. I have watched it for the last 15 years, until it culminated in the Newlands riots last year, which were as definitely the result of that insidious propaganda as anything could possibly be.

By the Nats.

By the Nats. They are making this question of race separation the main plank in their platform. In those days when I first came to Johannesburg there was separation in that sense. Here was a great native area within a reasonable distance from Johannesburg. Today it is largely a European area with the Europeans solidly behind the scheme of moving the whole of the native population from the western areas of Johannesburg to round about Orlando. That is the sort of propaganda I want the Minister to watch, because the natives are getting a great sense of insecurity, anxiety and distrust as a result of it.

Those of us living near Johannesburg are very perturbed about this communist propaganda taking place there. There are very few people in this country who realise what kind of speeches are made at those meetings and how the natives there are being incited. We have an influx of natives. Just to give you an idea, I want to tell you that last year when Parliament was sitting, there were between 50,000 and 60,000 natives in my constituency, but last month their number had increased to approximately 105,000. What is taking place there? The natives are called together to attend meetings and at those meetings they are made to believe anything to the detriment of the Europeans. White and black appear together on one platform and those are the things which are perturbing us. I want to say that those people who are appearing with natives on one platform and who are running down the Europeans and assist in inciting the natives against the white man—I say that they should be hanged. It is much better to hang a few now than that afterwards a large number of Afrikaners will be killed in order to quell disturbances. I ask the Minister of Justice—and we are grateful for what he has already done in our district —to take a serious view of these matters and to stop it before it is too late.

When I spoke yesterday and also this morning I submitted prima facie evidence to the Minister of Justice in regard to the Communist propaganda which is being spread in the country and especially in the large cities such as Johannesburg. In connection with this matter the Minister said that the onus is on us to show that Communist propaganda is being spread in this country. I gave him the report of the Secretary for Native Affairs; I gave him the evidence by members from his own ranks, namely that of the meeting in Green Point, where Mr. Wale and the hon. member for Green Point, Mr. Bowen, made serious allegations about Communist propaganda being spread amongst the coloured people, and now the Minister received the evidence of one of his own members on the other side about the propaganda taking place in Johannesburg. Now I still want to give him the evidence of his own leader.

He also dreamt dreams.

I submit to him the evidence of his own leader and surely the Minister of Justice does not want to ignore the evidence of his own leader on this matter. A deputation of English church leaders interviewed the Prime Minister in 1943 and the Prime Minister told that deputation the following—

It is the Minister’s own leader who made this statement but in spite of that the Minister is doing nothing. He tells us that we must bring him the evidence. May I point out to him that the statement by the Prime Minister commences with the following words—

What things were very inconvenient? The fact was that they had a war alliance with Soviet Russia. That is now a thing of the past. That “inconvenience” does no longer exist and we now ask the Minister of Justice and the country asks him, to take steps in view of the warning of his own leader, the Prime Minister. He should not take up the attitude which he adopted yesterday. Today we expect a serious reply and not stories about what the Nazis have done and that we should submit further evidence. We have given him the prima facie evidence and we want to know from him what has been done especially in view of the warning by the Secretary for Native Affairs. He should consult his colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs. I also advise him to consult the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) about Communistic propaganda. He should consult the hon. member for Green Point; he should consult those people who know what they are talking about in regard to this matter, and then he should take action. I said that the police should take steps and that the Minister should issue the necessary instructions—that he should give the police a free hand to take steps. That is all we ask. We know that the police right through the country are anxious to take action against these agitators but that they cannot obtain the necessary instructions from the Minister. We therefore ask him to leave the matter to the police so that they can put a stop to this kind of thing. We ask the Minister to take notice of the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago. Action by the police, however, is not sufficient. We must go further. The Minister knows, if he knows anything—I do not know how much he knows—but if the Minister reads anything and if he looks through his newspapers he should know what the aim of the Communists in South Africa is. I read out a sentence from this pamphlet which was distributed in Johannesburg and where they say—

I read out to him quotations from several pamphlets from which it is obvious that they are aiming at the establishment of a black republic, the creation of a black proletariat in South Africa. He knows it and the police know it. He knows what the ultimate goal of these people is and in view of that knowledge which is in the possession of the Minister, the time has come for not only allowing the police to take steps against this incitement of the natives but the time has also come to take action against the Communist Party as an organisation, to ban it and to declare it to be an illegal organisation. What we ask the Minister of Justice is that he, in the knowledge of the aims of this Communist organisation, should declare that organisation to be illegal. At every Communist meeting it is being said, and just now it was in fact admitted by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), that they want equality between black and white. All that hon. member apparently still needs is to live together with a native family in the same house and then she will be satisfied. May I draw the Minister’s attention in this connection to what is being done in Canada. In Canada they have no black danger. There they do not have only 2,500,000 Europeans as against 8,000,000 natives and coloureds; there they have not a white population, which, as in our case, has to defend its position within the background the whole African continent with its few hundred million natives; in spite of that we find in Canada that although Soviet Russia is Canada’s ally, the Communist Party has been an illegal organisation throughout the war. An attempt was made to persuade the Minister of Justice in Canada to lift the ban, and what was his reply—

He puts the case very clearly. The aims of the communists remain the same, whether Canada and Russia are allies or not. I want to tell the Minister of Justice that the war is now over and I furthermore want to tell him that he need no longer be afraid of Joseph Stalin—he need no longer be afraid that there will be a clash, because the clash is already there. The Minister need only read his newspapers to realise that. The Minister’s point of view is that although he notices what is going on he still refuses to do something about it. I also want to refer to a sub-leader appearing in this morning’s “Cape Times” and to which I shall come back later on. I want to ask the Minister whether he has read that report. If he does so he will notice what the position in Europe is, a position which will also be transferred to South Africa. The policy of the Nationalist Party on this point should be very clearly stated. The policy of this Party is that the Communist Party as such should be banned, and it will be banned when the Nationalist Party comes into power in South Africa. That organisation will be completely eradicated. On behalf of this Party I now give notice to the Communist Party of South Africa that action will be taken against it—or to use the Russian expression—that it will be liquidated in South Africa. That is the point of view of this side of the House and it should be clearly understood both by the Government and the Communist Party. That is the policy which will be put into effect. In the meantime we ask the Minister not to be blind and not to follow the policy of letting matters slide. That policy of “laissez faire, laissez aller” is the policy which the Minister is putting into practice now. He closes his eyes well knowing what is afoot. He should consult the Commissioner of Police, he should call in the police commandants of the various districts, he should consult the Minister of Native Affairs and he should consult the responsible officials of the Department of Native Affairs in the native areas; he should consult the Secretary for Native Affairs, and then he should take steps in conformity with the warning which he obtains from those people and which he will also be able to find in the report of the Secretary for Native Affairs of last year and again in his report of this year. He should not come to this House like he did yesterday and tell us that we should submit the evidence. We did submit the prima facie evidence to him; evidence was submitted to him by his own people and I want to tell the Minister that there are members Sitting behind him who expect him to take action. In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Green Point, namely that active communist propaganda is being spread in the Cape Peninsula, we ask him to get up here and to tell us whether he has read those reports. If he has not read them they should be brought to his notice by the police. It is the duty of the Minister to collect information of what is going on. The Minister should not try to shift the responsibility off his own shoulders. The position is serious and the sooner the Minister realises it the better; the sooner hon. members behind him realise it, the better it will be. The future of South Africa is at stake in regard to this matter.

I want to ask the hon. Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a report appearing in this morning’s newspapers about a potential miniature civil war in this country. I do not associate myself with that exaggerated agitation which is taking place in this country from time to time. In the first place I want to condemn it. But I also want to ask the Minister whether he noticed this morning that the O.B. stated that they are now going to take action. They are going to create their own shock troops to take action against the shock troops of the Communist Party. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not consider this to be a serious matter, and if he does consider it to be a serious matter I want to ask him whether he intends taking steps to prevent clashes taking place between those two extremist organisations. I hope that the Minister will not say that he is going to let matters develop. The question of the maintenance of order should rest with the police of South Africa and should hot be left to a private political party which wants to organise its own shock troops and which will thereby cause clashes to occur.

That is what we also say.

Of course it is possible that it is only bluff, but we do not know whether it is bluff or whether it is the real thing. I think that as we have repeatedly had clashes of that nature the time has now come for the Minister to take positive steps in that direction and to place the maintenance of order exclusively in the hands of the police force and not in the hands of the shock troops of the Ossewa-Brandwag or in the hands of the shock troops of the Communist Party. I hope the Minister will make that statement to the House. Furthermore I just want to ask the hon. Minister when he intends putting a stop to the present practice under which persons can be punished twice for the same offence, in the first instance by the court and secondly by the State department concerned. Sometimes a person is brought to court and accused of some offence or the other, and he may be acquitted. Thereafter steps are taken against him on the part of the Department in spite of the finding’s of the court. I should like to know when the Minister is going to lay down that the finding and the punishment of the court will have to be taken as final and that the State department concerned shall not thereafter take any disciplinary steps against the person concerned. I put a question to the Minister of Railways in connection with a certain person in the railway service who was charged with a certain offence and the Minister of Railways replied that the Department had taken steps against that person in spite of the finding of the chairman who was a lawyer and who said that the man was not guilty. In spite of the judicial enquiry the Department nevertheless went along and stated that that man should be punished. I hope the Minister of Justice will realise that the people of South Africa consider the question of inflicting punishment to be the duty of the courts of law and not the duty of a State department. We should like to see a stop being put to the infliction of double punishment for the same offence. Furthermore I want to ask the Minister when he intends abolishing for ever those detestable liquor licensing boards in South Africa. I believe that not only the Minister’s Department but also the people of South Africa are more than fed up with the liquor licensing boards and their actions in South Africa. I do not think there is a single hon. member who will want me to go into great detail about this matter. I think that the way in which the liquor licensing boards acted in the past is only too well-known. We disapprove most strongly of those actions of the liquor licensing boards. I do not say it applies in the case of all liquor licensing boards, but I think that the actions of the majority of the liquor licensing boards meet with the unanimous disapproval of the people of South Africa. The liquor licensing boards are aware of the fact that during the last few years speculation took place in regard to so-called wounded soldiers. Applications are submitted in the name of so-called wounded soldiers and licences are then issued to those wounded soldiers, but we know that it is not the wounded soldier who is behind the whole affair. Their names are only used by certain persons in order to evoke the sympathy of the liquor licensing board. The liquor bosses are behind the whole thing. I hope that the Minister will make a statement to the House during the present Session and that he will tell us when he intends taking action in that regard.

What do you want to put in the place of those boards?

I am prepared to tell the hon. member that but unfortunately I have only ten minutes; but just in passing I want to indicate one possible solution. Supposing you have a panel of 30 jury members. What I propose is that the names of those 30 jury members be put into a hat on the morning when the liquor licensing board is due to meet and that seven members are selected in that way to constitute the liquor licensing board. In that way you can prevent bribery and corruption taking place. I only mention this as a possible solution. I furthermore want to ask the Minister when he is going to take steps to put a stop to this large scale thieving and burgling which is taking place on the Witwatersrand and in other large cities. I do not want the Minister to have the impression that I am of opinion that the Department is not doing its best. We know that it is impossible for the police force to put a stop to thefts and burglaries but also in this respect I want to suggest a solution which in my opinion will work very effectively. The Minister will obtain very good results if he calls for a number of volunteers in civilian clothing to assist the police. It is generally known that today you cannot leave a car standing in Johannesburg unattended for two minutes without everything being stolen out of that car. If you do not lock your car your private clothing and everything in the car will be stolen from it. We know that the organised thieves will not easily commit a theft in the immediate vicinity of a police officer. The mere presence of a police officer enforces a measure of respect and obedience to the law. The organised thieves, however, take care that they stay away from the police at least a couple of hundred yards. For that reason I think that the Minister should call for volunteers in civilian dress to assist the police. They could for instance assist the police in the large hotels in Johannesburg and Cape Town and everyhere where thefts are taking place. I am convinced that if such a step were taken it would be possible to a large extent to put a stop to this large scale thieving within a few months. To the honour of Kimberley I just want to mention here an instance. A Government official one day told me in Kimberley that I could park my car outside the hotel and that I need not be afraid of thieves. He said: “Here you can leave your car standing the whole day and nobody will steal anything out of it”. My car stood there unlocked and with windows open for a whole day; there was a lot of stuff in the car and until four o’clock in the afternoon nothing had disappeared from the car. If that car had been standing in Johannesburg all the contents would have disappeared within two minutes.

In Kimberley they steal diamonds.

I do not want to make a joke of that. I hope the Minister will realise that the police force as it is now constituted is unable to catch those organised thieves. [Time limit].

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he dealt with the internees. I want to tell him that in my constituency there were many cases of lawlessness, but through his wise action he prevented more people from going wrong than he made enemies.

What did you do to free them?

I think I did more than any other member, with the help of the Minister, to help these poor people who had been misled, out of their difficulties, and I want to mention a few instances here to satisfy the hon: member as to what we did.

Did the Minister make a mistake in interning those people, and then you set them free?

In Messina six of these boys went to the military camp where they stole rifles and seriously assaulted one of the soldiers. What was the position? Eventually one of those boys joined the air force where he became an officer. Those boys were arrested and received a suspended sentence, but that one boy who became an officier was allowed, with the approval of the Administration of this country, to go back to the front. That was all as a result of the reasonable actions of the hon. the Minister. I want to mention another case of a certain man in my town who belonged to the Storm jaers, and through the wise action of the Minister that man has been rehabilitated. The day he came out he said that he realises that he was misled and that he would try to expiate that he had done wrong, and his first step was to join the civilian guard, and he said he would wear that uniform to prove that he had been misled by other people and that he would in future serve this country. I wish to go further. There was a German missionary in my constituency who was not even naturalised. He did the religious work amongst the natives. The Government issued an order that these people were not to be allowed to continue to preach the Gospel amongst the natives.

That is bad.

But as a result of representations I directed to the Minister this missionary was allowed to preach the Gospel amongst the natives. I think the Minister will bear me out that he never had reason to regret the step he had taken, because this man said: “I shall now prove that I am preaching the Gospel and do not get up to devilry.” I wish to go further. The Minister showed mercy to two boys who under Leibbrandt seriously assaulted another boy of 15. These boys were misled. They were 18 and 19 years old respectively. The Minister allowed those boys to go home where they could be under the supervision of their parents. Hon. members opposite yesterday spoke about injustice in this country. I think the Minister deserves all praise for the mild manner in which he treated these people who had been misled and as a result of that were guilty of subversive activities. Then I want to mention another case, the case of a man who was in the police force. He was in the internment camp for three years and his words to me were: “I did wrong, and do not want to leave my people in the lurch. When the time dawns I will come out and I will show that I have not the least grievance against the Government or against those who put me into prison.” I will go further. Some of those boys who stole dynamite were the sons of settlers, and what did the Minister do? He permitted those boys to be freed and today they are on the ground again. They were misled. I just wish to mention a few other facts. I now refer to cases in my own district. There are no fewer than 18 cases in my district where the Minister helped these people out of their difficulties and rehabilitated them. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Minister.

Had the Minister made a mistake when he interned them?

The hon. member alleges that he is a barrister, and if he is a barrister he knows as well as I do that if a man does wrong he must be punished, and if people have done wrong and have been misled, it is the duty of the Minister to punish them properly, but he did it mildly. He did not put them against the wall and shoot them as they do in Germany. He treated them mildly. As a result of the Minister’s action these people can now become honourable citizens of the country and not do further harm to the country as the result of the wrong advice they received from their friends. I wish to go a little further in connection with what was said here yesterday by hon. members opposite in connection with injustice which has been done in the country. They stated yesterday that the law must be carried out, but when a judge gives a decision which suits their argument they quote him as an authority; but when the judge who was the chairman of the Kakamas Commission gave a decision he was not a good judge. The judge who gave a decision in connection with a member of the Liquor Licensing Court at Brakpan is depicted as a hero by them, but the chairman of the Kakamas Commission, according to them, was not a good judge, because his findings do not suit them. I just want to tell the hon. Minister this, he must not worry about those things. As long as he does his duty to South Africa we will stand by him to see that law and order are maintained in the country. One of the members opposite spoke about the natives. As regards myself I wish to say that I, as an Afrikaner, live near a few great locations. I think I know the natives’ traditions; I know their habits and I have not the least fear that the Afrikaner, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, can stand up against any other race or influence. They will not allow Communism to triumph in South Africa.

But that propaganda continues amongst the natives and you do nothing.

We do not make a noise, but if the day comes when we are called upon as Afrikaners we will stand together and will not allow anyone in South Africa to do anything which will not redound to the honour of South Africa.

When it is too late you will act.

We in South Africa are quite satisfied that the Government under the able leadership of our leader will not permit anything to happen in South Africa to its dishonour and detriment.

I do not want to insult Oom Kaspaas, but I can only say that you speak like Oom Kaspaas.

Hon. members opposite go bankrupt of policy, but I want to tell them that we stand by the Government.

And fall.

And right and justice will be maintained in South Africa as far as the native is concerned, but we will not allow him to step over the mark, and I think the Minister maintained that best in South Africa.

When I reached my time limit I was about to deal with a case of a prominent timber merchant in Durban. The question of his nationality does not concern me, but he is looked upon as probably the most prominent member of his race in the timber trade. It is said that he, with his lorry driver, was responsible for the theft of thousands of sheets of galvanised iron and other builders’ materials from the Maydon Wharf—the stolen, property being conveyed by lorry to the merchant’s own warehouse in Queen Street, Durban. There is evidence that the lorry was watched by the C.I.D. as it drove from the wharf to the warehouse, so there can be no doubt in this case of the knowledge of the police of the circumstances. The odd thing about it is that the principal in the theft, the merchant, has got off scott free, and the only person punished was the lorry’ driver, who was sentenced to some years of imprisonment. The general public who are concerned with the proper and even distribution of justice want to know how it was possible for the principal to escape punishment and for the punishment to be confined to the lorry driver. This was a case in which the stolen property concerned was of enormous value and the police can scarcely hide themselves behind the fact that this is a trivial matter. It is not trivial at all. The circumstances of the theft were known to the police, and what I want to know is how it is possible for the Attorney-General to neglect to prosecute the man who was principally responsible for the theft. That is a question to which large numbers of the public demand an answer. Then there is another prominent firm in Commercial Road, Durban, the biggest merchants in their line and of their nationality in Durban, reputed to have made not less than half a million pounds during the war. They bought a large property for cash which had never been put through their books. The police and the Receiver of Revenue discovered this, but the case has never come before the court. In other words the firm concerned has evaded the ordinary forms of justice which would be meted out to most people. There again the public would like to know how it is possible for a transaction of that sort, which is dead against every enactment for which the present Acting Prime Minister was responsible in his capacity as Minister of Finance, to go unpunished. Every transaction on which income is earned, or profits are made on the sale of property should be carefully watched and irregularities or illegalities punished, but no punishment has been meted out in this case, although it is openly stated in Durban that both the police and the Receiver of Revenue were perfectly aware of the facts of the case.

Did this happen in Durban where the Dominion Party is?

I think the hon. member has the Dominion Party on his brain.

On his what?

He published an article suggesting that the Dominion Party had broken an agreement not to sing God Save the King. No such agreement ever existed.

I do not know what you are talking about.

It was referred to in the columns of your weekly newspaper. Now, there is another company at 67, Victoria Street. A report was made to the police that a promiment member of this firm had £3,000 of black market money concealed in a certain spot in his house,—cash which had not been entered in his books and it was discovered there by the police, but no prosecution has taken place. These things go on from time to time without any charge being brought against the persons concerned. I see the Secretary for Justice laughing, but this is no laughing matter. It is a matter which is going to be brought home to the police in due course, and I am now exercising the right I have to question the Minister about it, although it may be a matter of temporary amusement to his staff.

What was his crime?

The hon. member surely knows that in regard to income tax, if a man has concealed and not put on record the profits he earns, it is punishable under the Income Tax Act. That is why he was said to be concealing black market money, because he had not brought these profits to account. If the hon. member thinks that is not a crime he is merely propounding an ingenious defence which would be better brought up in a police court. I wish to know what attitude the Minister adopts in regard to these serious cases, ranging from this serious case of murder, about which we have heard nothing further. We have done what is possible to indicate the directions in which enquiry might be pursued. We refer to these other cases of wholesale thefts of building materials, and the public are entitled to know what action the Minister proposes to take. Is he going to permit these things, that the principals should escape scot free and a mere lorry driver be punished by imprisonment? I should like to hear from the Minister what steps he proposes to take in regard to the action of the police in issuing an exit permit in the case of a man who still to this day remains a suspect on a charge of murder.

I should like to say a few words on this discussion in regard to what some people call Communism in this country. I have been associated with the natives for many years and I can assure the House of this one thing, that if the native, as such, in the rural areas knows what true Communism means he will be the last man to be a communist. He is probably as much a capitalist as many of the European capitalists in this country. But I want to say at once that there are subversive elements in this country trying to lead these natives along wrong lines. I should like to ask the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) this question, whether he does not remember the trouble with Kadalie 20 years ago, and whether we did not have exactly the same speeches in the House then as today; it has been a repetition. I recognise the fact there is unrest, and I think it would be a remarkable thing if there was no unrest among the natives. When we realise that during the last five years unrest has existed right through the country amongst the European population, unrest due to subversive elements, I think it is to our credit that the native people have kept the peace during that period. That is not to say we will remain at peace in the next five years. I believe there are factors that might bring about a serious clash, and my fear is that if there is a serious clash between Europeans on the one hand and natives and coloured people on the other, the unfortunate people who will suffer most are the natives. We have force of arms and can use them if necessary; but is that the right feeling? If in the course of the next five years there be subversive elements trying to stir up the natives and bring about a clash, let us face that fact. The younger natives, as a whole, have completely lost respect for their chiefs and for their parents, and not only that, but they have lost respect for the Europeans, not only those of us who perhaps are in the business world, but a much more serious factor is that they are losing respect for the European teachers, and above all for the European missionaries. That, I think, is one of the most dangerous phases, and it is to that that I wish specially to direct the attention of the Minister. During the last five months in our training institutions controlled by missionaries, where we have lads of between 17 to 24 being educated, we have had four serious disturbances, strikes. They have had to call the police in. The missionaries themselves, the European teachers, have been assaulted, the natives have tried to burn down the buildings, and there is a subversive element at work among the younger generation, among the young teachers, and these are the people who will have to guide their own people in the immediate future. At Kingwilliamstown recently the police were called in and 150 boys stood on the hill and refused even to come down to the mission station. Some people there suggested that the police should have taken forcible measures and that they should have fired, and that they should have called in the civilian poplation to put down the trouble. There again I agree with my hon. friend the member for Krugersdorp that in a trouble of this sort we should keep the civilian population out of it. That was shown by the experience in connection with the trouble at Port Elizabeth. We must have sufficient police to control this sort of trouble. Once you bring in civilians race prejudice comes into play and the upshot is a clash. I want to ask the Minister, has he tried to find out how this subversive influence is being brought to bear in these missionary schools, and what is being done to put down this trouble? That, to my mind, is one of the most serious aspects of the present position. I agree to a large extent with the remarks made by he hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that in our towns we have perhaps conditions that have caused a great deal of dissatisfaction. The Secretary for Native Affairs has himself said the living conditions are causing trouble. In the rural areas the natives are not living under bad conditions. The point now is that missionaries, though they have given their lives for generations in the cause of the natives, and European teachers who have been trying to build up the natives by devoting their lives to their progress, are being threatened. There must be some steps that the Minister should take to defend the future of these natives. What do we find today? Missionaries who have grown up in this country, who have lived amongst the natives all their lives, have exclaimed when they have retired: Thank God; we are glad to be out of it. In the same way magistrates whose careers have been spent amongst the natives have on their retirement declared plainly that they were glad to be out of the Department. That, to my mind, is one of the greatest dangers we are facing. We have natives going round, educated by the Communists, in the Transvaal chiefly, they are coming down, sending youths into the institutions, instilling these poisons. We have them coming into our towns and villages. One came down recently and advised all the domestic servante to work only eight hours a day.

That is not Communist propaganda; that is trade union propaganda.

It may be trade union propaganda, but it is pretty rotten propaganda and dangerous propaganda. One hon. member has suggested native farm labourers should only work five days a week and seven hours a day. I am a farmer, and very often you have to work nine, ten or eleven hours a day to try to bind your wheat or oats into sheaves when the weather is threatening. There are times when there is tremendous pressure of work, and when it is quite ridiculous for the farmer or his employees to think of working seven hours a day and five days a week. That is the sort of thing that is creating trouble; and when an hon. member in the House says it, can you expect the police to prosecute a native who is preaching the same doctrine amongst his own people? That is the difficulty the Department of Native Affairs has to contend with. In any labour question as soon as any trouble occurs the Labour Department is brought in, and the Department of Justice is brought in, but eventually it falls on the unfortunate shoulders of the Minister of Native Affairs to cope with these difficulties. I say without hesitation that the Department of Native Affairs has carried out its duties most efficiently and I repeat that the fact that the Government during the last five years have been able to maintain peace and order without a clash of serious proportions redounds to the credit of the country and of the natives, and if the situation had not been wisely dealt with we should probably have had bloodshed before now. We must be very careful about the future and not allow natives to preach these extravagant doctrines. It is all very well having this sort of talk in a place like Hyde Park, but that is an entirely different picture. The white man has been brought up for generations to argue a matter out, to see things for himself, and to arrive at his own conclusions, but when you get great masses of natives listening to these wild speeches at street corners it is time for a halt to be called. The Nationalists brought in the Riotous Assemblies Act and they thought that would enable them to deal with the matter, but unfortunately it has not proved as effective as it might have. I want to warn the Minister we shall have to be very careful in the future, and that these subversive natives who are going round the country must be controlled in some way. Otherwise it is the unfortunate natives themselves who will suffer if a clash does come.

Hear, hear!

Yesterday when the matter of Communism was raised by this side of the House the hon. Minister of Justice replied that the Communist Party is just a political party like any other and he went so far as to compare it with the Nationalist Party and to say that the Communist Party is not really much worse. We must issue a warning here. If that is the attitude of the Minister of Justice he is letting things develop in cur country for which the nation will pay very dearly. I want to assure him that the comparison between the two parties is very unreasonable. The Nationalist Party is not a party in which he will find natives, nor will he find the members of the Nationalist Party call natives “comrades”. Neither will he find what just recently happened in Cape Town, where natives and Europeans were crowded together at one meeting and sat next to each other and called each other “comrades”. You will not find that in our Party. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) went so far as to say that it is the Nationalists who are the cause of the riots which possibly will take place, that the Nationalists are busy inciting the natives. I just want to tell her that she should accuse herself of that sort of thing. She has sent it to the wrong address. There is nobody who is greater cause of incitement amongst natives, there is nobody who is more busily engaged teaching the natives things they do not know about than the native representatives.

Which things?

The speeches made in the House here are more inciting than anything said outside. The native representatives do nothing to prevent that soit of thing. Eventually if blood flows they will be the cause of it. It is funny that they should pretend to be so innocent. We as farmers hear things here about which we have never heard before although we have dealt with the natives for generations. They speak here about rights, about which the natives have not the least idea, and in that manner the natives are incited to put demands which are totally unjust. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has now left the House. I knew that the tobacco would be too strong for him. We see these things in the right perspective and we have been issuing warnings for a few years already about this thing which is developing, but nothing is done. Communists are even going round the farms and at night when the farmer sleeps they hold meetings of the natives on the farm, and they are told all sorts of things, and next day the farmer finds that the native who has been on his farm for ten or twenty years, adopts a peculiar attitude, and shortly afterwards he gives his master notice and leaves the farm. Then there are suddenly all sorts of grievances which never existed before. Formerly the relationship between the farmer and the natives was of the best, but just as soon as they are incited there are grievances, and when the farmer finds out what the reason is he finds that there were communists on the farm at night. There are even white people who go round and do that sort of thing on the farms at night. Recently there was a case of a farmer who has 70 dairy cows, and through such a night meeting he lost his old labourers who had been with him for ten years and more, with the result that he had to get in convicts to milk the cows and had to struggle to get labourers again. But the Minister says there is no such thing as Communism. I want to warn the Minister that if he does not begin to act he will set a pot boiling which will lead to a clash between Europeans and nonEuropeans and to much bloodshed. The Minister will be the cause of that.

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

One cannot help but feel that there is an impression abroad that it is in order to refer to every form of agitation and disturbance and unrest related to the industrial life of the country as Communism. It is illogical to think of these factors which are natural manifestations of a developing industrial economy as being related necessarily to South African Communism. One was surprised this morning to hear the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) fall a victim to that fallacy. He has made his views clear in regard to the activities of South African communists. He does not like them. In that he does not stand alone. But enjoying the views that he does he was unfortunately prepared to allow his outlook to be sufficiently clouded as to fail to recognise and distinguish first principles. In the result he said some extraordinary things. He asked for instance how if the native representatives in the House propagated the doctrines which they did, to which doctrines he made it clear he took exception, a policeman could be expected to arrest a native giving expression to the same doctrines outside the confines of this House. There is of course in that attitude an implication that the native representatives enjoying the privileges of free speech in Parliament, are prepared to shield themselves behind that protection to enunciate doctrines which they know to be irresponsible. I leave the native representatives to defend themselves as they are well able to do, but it is an extraordinary proposition to have heard from the hon. member, which shows how confused he is in regard to first principles. If a European makes propaganda without infringing established law in the interests of better conditions for the native people, or even without such a justifiable motive, that right is looked upon as enshrined within the general principle of liberty of speech. If, however, a native pursuing propaganda which he believes will result in better conditions for his people, he ought in the mind of the hon. member to be arrested. That is logic which I fail to appreciate. Yesterday, while the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) was referring to the judgment in the case of “The Star” V. “Die Transvaler”, and was making the point that the Judge who sat in that case had held “Die Transvaler” to have Nazi sympathies, an hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), made an interjection. His interjection was, that he (the Judge) is a Jew. The hon. member for Hospital sought the Chairman’s ruling as to whether that interjection was not a reflection upon the learned Judge. The ruling from the Chair was, that it was not a reflection upon the integrity of the Judge. Mr. Chairman, I share that view entirely. How could it possibly be a reflection upon any man in this country to say of him that he is a Jew. It would have been a monstrous suggestion, and I should have been thoroughly ashamed of any ruling from the Chair, which laid it down even by implication, that to say that was a reflection. But’ that does not dispose of the matter. I ask the hon. the interjector, to say what he had in mind, what his intention was when he made that interjection; and I ask him what he imagines will be the reaction in the mind of the learned Judge when he learns of this interjection. What in fact does he think will be the reaction in the mind of every brother Judge in every province in this country? Because, after all, what did the hon. member mean? And when that interjection was repeated this morning by the hon. member for Serfontein, what did he mean?

On a point of explanation, if I am the hon. member for Serfontein I deny that I made any interjection.

I am sorry that I could not hear the mumbling of the hon. gentlemen. I ask these hon. members whether they think that Mr. Justice Millin will look upon this as having been intended as a complimentary interjection. Or will the hon. and learned Judge look upon it as an interjection which had no intention behind it one way or another? Or will he draw the same unanswerable conclusion which every decent person in this country will draw, that these hon. members intended by this interjection, the suggestion that because the learned Judge was a Jew, he did not, and could not treat a case in which “Die Transvaler” was involved with due impartiality. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it was a wicked reflection which these hon. gentlemen made. It is true that in Nazi Germany Judges lost their independence, and we know with what result. But in this country the honour of our judiciary stands high and irreproachable, and we are thankful for it. Our Judges, all of them, are free and independent, and we who believe that we owe so much in this country, as is owed in Britain, to the independence of our Judges, will show in no unmistakable terms, the extent to which we resent these interjections.

Hear, hear.

Now I leave these two hon. gentlemen, whom I refer to as honourable, merely in compliance with the courtesies demanded of the rules of this House. I turn now to another hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) yesterday delivered himself of a statement which would have been, had it been true, one of the outstanding and startling revelations of the war. He made the statement that atrocities which he alleged had been committed by the Russians, put Buchenwald in the shade. Of course to some hon. members the mess which the Russians made of the enemy was an atrocity. It is interesting, however, that one has never heard of this suggestion before from the hon. member, or from Zeesen, which no one will deny, exploited in the way of propaganda every falsehood which could come to mind. Not only did Zeesen never give as much as a hint of these Russian atrocities which put Buchenwald in the shade. But somehow it managed to be kept a secret from all the allies of the Russians, and was revealed yesterday to the House in all its startling originality. If however, the statement is not true, and it is not being sheer fantastic nonsense, all that the hon. gentleman has achieved for himself is to have made himself the laughing stock of the country.

I shall deal with you later.

I will deal with you.

For the sake of his fair and good and honoured name, the hon. gentleman should tell the country on the basis of what premises he made this statement, which I say again is fatuous nonsense.

I will give it to you.

You are running away again.

Does the hon. gentleman contest the truth of the allegations made as to the atrocities in German concentration camps? Has he seen the film representing facts accepted by the British Government as indisputable evidence of what went on in those camps? Does he deny the fiendish inhumanities perpetrated in Buchenwald? And if he accepts all these what sort of atrocities does he suggest could have been committed by the Russians, which could have equalled let alone been worse than those which we on this side of the House saw depicted. By his attempt to startle the House with his original revelations, the hon. gentleman has only succeeded in making himself even more than he was ever before, the laughing stock of the country.

I think that at this stage the House is justified to demand from the Minister that he must tell us what his policy is in connection with the communistic agitation in our country. He has not told us a single word of what his future policy is in that connection. If we were a country of Europeans alone—I want to emphasise that—we would be able to say that what is good for one European is good for the other, but we sit here with 2,000,000 Europeans and 8,000,000 non-Europeans, and to supply this 8,000,000 non-Europeans with food and a peaceful form of life alone will be extremely difficult, but if you are going to infect these 8,000,000 non-Europeans with Communism, where will our European population land? What will be the future for us except death and devastation? We want to emphasise that Communism is a good organisation for Russia, for Russia and Russia alone. But can we imagine that we could dare, or that the whole world could dare instituting an organisation in Russia which would harm Russia and the communistic ideology? Who will dare that? Will Russia allow it? Never. Why must the democratic world today obediently bend and crawl to allow Russian Communism in the democratic countries, so that it is planted and organised here? It is not only this side which realises the dangers of the agitation. We are thankful to members opposite who recognise the danger and insist that the Government should take steps. We are thankful for the frank statement of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) and others. But it is not enough. We must face the danger. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) poses as a full-blooded Communist who intends organising Communism here. He does the other side of the House and the whole of South Africa no good through that. On the contrary he is busy digging the grave of European South Africa and I regret that the Minister finds a champion in him. I think that the whole House is disappointed with the Minister.

Like to like.

There is a world-wide agitation against Communism. Even in England they have begun to recognise the danger. May I just read something? It does not emanate from this side but from a British member of Parliament, a Conservative member, Commander R. T. Bower, the member for Saltbum (Yorkshire). On 14th February, 1945, he expressed himself strongly, according to the following S.A.P.A. message—

Why must a member like the hon. member for Hospital crawl in this House and bend and pose as the champion for the Russian Communism? Have we not enough difficulties in the country? Why must we also import the burden of Communism into our country to increase our diffculties? I wish to associate myself 100 per cent. with what fell from the hon. member for Tembuland when he said that Communism is disseminating dangerous agitation among the natives. He spoke about a Communist who stood on the soap-box or something of that nature and stated to English missionaries: “We imported praying devils from England into this country; we do not believe in them”. Those were the expressions, and we have a Minister who sits there calmly and solemnly and is self-satisfied, and he does not wish to stir a finger to go against this cruel and unquestioned movement of Communism.

In the first place I want to say to the Minister that we in the Transvaal look up to him as Minister of Justice. I endorse the allegations made by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers), but I must say that the manner in which the Opposition makes use of the judges is reprehensible. I think the hon. member spoke in an able manner on that subject. It is perfectly clear that when a judge pronounces a sentence which suits their purpose, then they are quite satisfied, but if the sentence should be otherwise, they are dissatisfied. However, I want to bring something else to the Minister’s attention. Much has been said here of the terrible danger of Communism, but I see another danger. I see that hon. members on the other side are playing with a much greater danger, and they are endangering something which we have upheld in the country for years and years. I remember, it was I believe the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) who stood up yesterday evening and took upon himself the defence of a man who was guilty and who refused to make statements when the law requested him to do so. I would like to know from the Nationalist Party whether it is going to be their policy in the future that they will protect anybody who is requested by the law to make a statement and who refuses to do so. Are they in favour of allowing a person to refuse should he choose to do so? In the past they have not only used adults, but children and young girls as well, to sing to them and do things which constitute a violation of the law. The weakest point of all to me is that the hon. member should stand up and advocate that prisoners in gaol should be treated as they would be in a hotel. The hon. member requested that a certain type of cushion should be provided in the gaol. Every now and again the Nationalist Party asserts that they will do certain things when they come into power. Let them tell us whether they intend to make hotels out of the gaols, and that prisoners which they lay hands on and who are punished should be provided with inflated cushions and feather beds, etc. I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention that in my opinion the refusal to make a statement is a criminal offence.

You are now discriminating?

I hope that the hon. member for Fauresmith or his colleagues will rise and announce whether it is their policy. I would like to say a few words to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). There is a well-known proverb that it is easier to criticise than to create. He comes here and says what the Minister should do. Why does he regard this section of our Government as so weak that the Minister does not know what to do.

But you are now attacking your brother.

†*Mr. PRINSLOO; Some hon. members made a terrible song about flags. They are worried about the flags which were hoisted in Johannesburg and at other places, and they say it was the red flag and so on. But there is only one flag which hon. members on the other side can wave, and that is the white flag. Now they are jealous that other people should hoist flags. They have only one flag, and that is the white flag.

I rise to intervene in this debate because of the undoubted similarity which appeals to me between the O.B., the arch-enemies of the Nationalist Party, and the Nationalist Party themselves. Some’ months ago the O.B. issued a pamphlet—a copy was sent me with Gen. Van Rensburg’s compliments, although actually I was not complimented—and this pamphlet purported to show the history of the Labour Party and the labour movement generally in South Africa, and by quite a clever piece of journalism they showed, according to their own ideas, that the labour movement in South Africa was of communist origin. The quotations were mainly from statements made by some of the early leaders of the Communist Party in this country and there were references to incidents that occurred during the 1922 revolution. That, of course, is definite Nazi technique. We know that in Germany the Nazi Party became prominent as a counter irritant to the Communist Party. [Interruptions.] If the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will allow me, I will proceed. The hon. member interrupts every speech that is made in this House and in this quarter we cannot hear ourselves talk. May I remind you, Sir, that only the other day you read out a ruling that if members were carrying on an audible conversation in this House your duty would be to deal with them, and I suggest you deal with the hon. member for Hospital because he will not allow anyone to speak without keeping up a running fire of interjections. The point I am trying to make ….

Make it.

There he is like the babbling brook; he cannot stop babbling. With the permission of the hon. member for Hospital, my point is the similarity of the attitude of the O.B., and the technique of the Nazi Party, and the attitude of the Nationalist Party in this House. Nazism in Germany used Communism as an excuse for them emarking on a policy of Jew-baiting. As the hon. Minister has pointed out, as long as we have free speech, as long, that is to say, that we do not have the Nationalist Party in power, and as long as we keep democracy going political parties are allowed to make their propaganda. But we find this definite similarity between the Nationalist Party, the O.B. and the Nazis, namely, they have only two lines of propaganda, one is by raising the Communist Party bogey, and the other is a programme of complete and definite anti-Semitism, and yet the hon. members of the Nationalist Party tell us they are still democrats. [Interruptions.] With all the bumptious ptresumption of the hon. member for Hospital, I can make a point as well as he can. The hon. member on his re-election to Parliament after a long and fortunate period of absence from the House, seems to have assumed to himself the right to direct the affairs of this House. Though he never got higher than the office of Deputy-Chairman of Committees he now arrogates to himself the combined rôle of Mr. Speaker, Chairman, Deputy-Chairman and the Prime Minister all rolled into one, and we cannot make a speech without having to endure his continued fire of interruptions. This incidentally will probably mean a vicious attack on me, in his paper one of these days. Hon. members of the Nationalist Party have said several times during this particular Session they have no antipathy towards the native, but they are prepared to give the native a square deal, that they do not want to exploit the natives, that they wish to see him raised in the standard of civilisation, and yet the question I want to ask now is this: We have in this House, despite what may be said by one or two irresponsible members, three representatives of the native people—we do not have enough because unfortunately that representation is confined to the Cape Province—and even the Nationalist Party, in all their wild extravagances have never attempted to accuse these three representatives of being communists, but recognising as they do that the native people must progress, professing as they do an interest in the native people and a belief that the native people should be improved, and alleging to the Minister the grave danger which 1res in communist propaganda, which does undoubtedly preach economical, political and social equality between black and white, though they allege these things why is it that we find them always in opposition to the three native representatives in this House? In my experience the native representatives have always taken the middle course and have always preached a doctrine of restraint and a doctrine which is determined by their interest in improving, not by revolutionary but by evolutionary means, the position of the native in this country. I want to challenge the Nationalist Party on their sincerity in this respect. The hon. member tor Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) poses as an expert on the Communist Party but what he knows about the Communist Party he will soon forget. If he really wants to make a good speech on the Communist Party why does he not consult me, because the Communist Party is as big an opponent of the Labour Party as the hon. member for Beaufort West himself. Apart from his vicious racialism I am not sure I would not rather have the hon. member for Beaufort West than the Leader of the Communist Party in control in this country, because I can assure him not only are the members of the Labour Party in South Africa not communists, but we are very greatly opposed to the policy being pursued in South Africa by the Communist Party, so much so that at the last annual conference of the Labour Party held last January when a resolution was put forward which asked the Labour Party to enter into a working arrangement with Left Wing organisations in South Africa, an amendment was moved “except with the Communist Party”, and that amendment was carried by an overwhelming majority. That is the policy of the Labour Parties throughout the world. The British Labour Party has consistently refused to accept any attempt by the Communist Party to affiliate with the Labour Party. It refused any such attempt by the Commonwealth Party, which appears to be some sort of Communist Party in disguise. The Australian Labour Party have adopted a similar attitude, so has the New Zealand Labour Party, and so generally speaking throughout the British Commonwealth. It is only in the British Commonwealth that really strong Labour Parties exist. The influence of the Communist Party has been continuously retarded by the Labour Party. [Time limit.]

In view of what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has said about the antagonism existing between the Labour Party and the Communist Party, it would be interesting to know what his colleague the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) says about that. I hope the hon. member is not really serious when he suggests that Communism and Democracy and free speech are synonymous terms.

I did not say so.

That is what you suggested. I refer the hon. member to a quotation which. I read yesterdaý from the “Cape Argus” of only two days ago, where surprisingly enough that newspaper described the aims of Soviet Russia in the following terms—

I notice that the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) is not in his seat. He, of course, is running true to form. It is the usual sort of thing; he launches an attack and then runs to his funk hole. I will deal with him later. This morning when discussing Communism, I dealt more particularly with communist propaganda in this country, and I appealed to the Minister to deal with it, in as much as it is directed to the native and coloured people. This afternoon I want to take the matter a little further, and show that communist propaganda in South Africa is closely connected with, and associated with Soviet aspirations in Europe. We were told a year or two ago that the Comintern had been dissolved, and all that sort of thing. It is very clear from what has happened during the past few weeks that that is not so. It is perfectly clear that the aim of Communism is emerging once more, namely the idea of establishing world Communism; Communism is not to be confined only to Europe, but it is to be extended to every part of the world. As a result of developments during the past few months, a situation is developing in Europe which amounts to Russian domination, and not only Russian domination but communistic domination, which necessarily in time must also affect us here in South Africa. As the Prime Minister put in on a previous occasion, Russia has become the mistress of Europe. She controls the Baltic States, Poland—both parts—Hungary, Rumania. Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia and Greece. We see that Italy is turning communistic and we had a report a week or two ago that France is also swinging to the Left as a result of the elections there. If there were any doubt about what is happening in Europe, any doubt as to the ultimate aims of Stalin and Soviet Russia, these doubts are dispersed by the “Cape Times” itself. On the 14th of this month— I have a cutting from the “Cape Times” before me—they dealt with this very point, Russian domination. The sub-heading of this article is “Russian Domination in Rumania”, and in the dispatch reference is also made to the Polish question—

The article goes on to state—

We have here a clear exposition of Russian domination in Europe, and the next step will undoubtedly be to carry out the old established policy of Lenin and his successors to establish Communism in every country of the world.

You are quite wrong there.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) raised the question of what I said in the House yesterday. Yesterday, in dealing with the question of Communism, I referred to what was happening in occupied territory. I referred to what is happening in Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary, and I said that things were happening there which put Buchenwald in the shade. I repeat that statement. This morning the “Cape Times” had a leader in which reference is made to the curious Nationalist mentality, where I am described “as being armed only with the lively suspicion”. It says that “Mr. Louw states as fact grave libels which have no foundation in anything more substantial than Mr. Louw’s imagination”. That statement was repeated today by the hon. member for Umlazi, who said that I had made myself a laughing stock of the country. Mr. Chairman, the man who has made himself the laughing stock is the hon. member himself. I have before me the Press dispatch on which my statement was based, from the correspondent of the London “Times”. It is generally known and accepted that the “Times” is the leading newspaper in England, and it has responsible men as its correspondents.

You do not always believe it.

But you always do.

It is a reliable paper. It does not employ the type of correspondent which the “Argus” has in Mr. Shapiro, who recants one day what he said two days before. The “Cape Argus” published this dispatch from the London “Times”, under the heading “Unrest in the Balkans: Communist Sway in Bulgaria”. It is to the effect that the correspondent of “The Times” in Istanbul states that—

Which has also been done in South Africa! The hon. the Minister of Justice has been secured as one of the patrons of The Friends of the Soviet Union; it is the real Soviet technique—

The article goes on to say—

And then the hon. member for Umlazi comes along and tells this House that I am making a laughing stock of myself, and the “Cape Times” says that what I said was a libel which has no foundation whatever except in my imagination.

Who wrote that article?

This dispatch makes it clear that Communist domination is becoming effective practically over the whole of the continent of Europe, and that we may expect the same sort of thing here in case the Communists should get into power in this country. It is not merely a matter of suspicion as the “Cape Times” says. It is not a matter of a libel which has no foundation except in my imagination. This dispatch which I have quoted, from the correspondent of the London “Times”, the leading paper of England, states that between 1,500 and 2,000 of these people have been exterminated in Communist controlled countries during the past few weeks. I repeat this puts in the shade what has happened in Buchenwald. I am not condoning what happened there, but stating what is actually happening in the Balkans. I now want to deal with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) put certain questions to me, and I think that I should reply to them immediately. I want to admit at once that there were agitators among the natives.

And still are.

And still are, and I also want to say that long ago I got into touch with the Secretary for Native Affairs. I want to assure the House that the agitation which caused the most harm was that of Nazi agents in the country. In conjunction with the Secretary for Native Affairs efficient action was taken against them. The member for Beaufort West said further that the Government ought to take steps and that the Department of Justice should take action. I want to repeat once again what I have said ever so often, and that is that the laws of the country are made by Parliament and the department can only take action when a violation of those laws takes place. If there is agitation and if propaganda is made which is not in conflict with the law of the land, then we cannot take action against it. I said further that all the agitation, of whatever kind it may be, must be carefully examined and watched. I said that the law had not been transgressed, particularly not in the manner we have applied it in the last five years. It was applied in this way to the agitators who were pro-German, and we cannot now apply the law to another section in a different way. We cannot apply the law in one manner to one section and then again inflict punishment on another section. We are a democratic country, and everybody is entitled to an even enforcement of the law. That is the principle which we on this side strictly adhere to. I said that members should furnish us with information if a transgression of the law takes place which they know of. We do not expect them to institute proceedings, but if they say that the law has been transgressed, why then do they not give us the evidence so that we can go into the matter? I do not say that transgressions do not take place, but if they fail to do this, what right have they then to stand up here and make accusations in this way? The hon. member for Beaufort West also pointed out how far Canada had gone, and he asserts that we should adopt Canada’s principle. But from that portion which he read out, it would appear that the Canadian Minister of Justice said that the Communist Party in Canada had sinned against the criminal law of the country. That we cannot say here.

What about the Riotous Assemblies Act?

That has not been violated by the communists, just as little as it has been transgressed by the other side.

That is only an excuse.

What about the agitation amongst farm labourers?

If the law is transgressed by agitation among farm labourers, then I would be glad if the hon. member would provide us with such information. Up to this time we have not yet received it.

The police took statements in Johannesburg.

Yes, all those cases are being properly investigated.

And there they remain.

We cannot institute proceedings if we do not know beforehand that that prosecution is going to be justified. I want to ask the members who have made these accusations to realise that we can only prosecute if the law is transgressed, and each case is properly investigated. But we are not going to allow the law to be used for political and other propaganda. The law was made by this Parliament and it will be upheld by this Government. Then I come to the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the conditions to which he referred, are being carefully watched. We keep just as careful a watch on those conditions as on all agitation in the country. I can give him the assurance that where it is necessary and where any law is violated, we will take action.

Did you go into the statement made by the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen)?

He did not say that the law had been transgressed. He spoke of propaganda. Go and ask him whether it is his finding that the law was transgressed or whether it was done outside the law? Last year I made the challenge, and up till now no single case has been brought to my attention. Then there are a few other points. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) spoke about internees, and the hon. member for Frankfort said that as the war was now over, we should release German internees. I would remind him that France surrendered, and two years later there were still French internees in Germany. It is not a question of fairness or unfairness. It is a matter which will at a later stage be settled in conjunction with the Allies. The hon. member for Frankfort also said that the member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is my friend. That is so, and I am proud and thankful for it. The hon. member also said that the hon. member for Hospital hid away in Bloemfontein when the shells burst at Magersfontein.

That is a he.

It was not so. The hon. member for Hospital and his family were strongly opposed to the Free State’s participation in the war together with the Transvaal, but when the decision had been taken, he remained true to the Free State and did not run away. They sent him out. Members on the other side forget the resolution which was taken by the Free State. Those members on the other side whom I have mentioned, have a clean record, and they will not blame me if I correct them as regards this matter. The hon. member for Frankfort knows quite well that before the Boer War we had many people in the Free State who spoke very bitterly of what they would do and how they would chase all the English into the sea. Where were they when my hon. friend was on the battlefield The Free State took up the attitude that the English in the Free State did not need to fight against England for they did not want those people to fight against people of their own blood. In that respect they were also right. But the hon. member for Hospital and his family remained true throughout to the Free State and we know that he helped us.

Where did he fight?

I think the hon. member for Frankfort will be grateful if I put him right on this point and if I also give him this information. When he was thrown into gaol, the hon. member for Hospital did his best to escape. He does the same as regards internees and he has managed to have many internees released. Although we may differ on political grounds from each other, let us not forget the past entirely.

He accused us of hiding away.

No, he would not accuse you of that. I only mentioned this matter in passing.

But we would like to know where the member for Hospital fought?

The policy of the Free State was that they did not have to fight against people of their own blood. But the hon. member ought to know what the hon. member for Hospital has done in connection with the Helpmekaar.

We are not concerned with the Helpmekaar at the moment. We want to know where he fought.

I stated clearly that it was the policy of the Free State Government that no English-speaking citizen should go and fight against people of his own flesh and blood. But he was under the shells. He was at Magersfontein. I do not blame other members for forgetting this, but I do not want members such as the hon. member for Frankfort and the hon. member for Namaqualand, who have a good war record, to forget these things. There are other members on the other side whose attitude differed from ours at that time, and also differed from that of the hon. member for Hospital. It is not my intention to cause bad feeling here. I then come to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and I want to say to him that the Liquor Act is a very complicated Act. It is something which must be investigated and as soon as possible I will appoint a commission to enquire into that Act thoroughly with a view to submitting new legislation.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has raised matters of very grave importance. Some of those matters he discussed with me personally before. I want to give him the assurance that these matters will be investigated to the full. I intend going to Durban immediately after the Session with a special view to investigating the complaints he made. But he will realise that when the South Africa Act was altered and the Minister of Justice also had the right to prosecute, it was never the intention that he would supervise every prosecution because that would be impossible. The practice has been, ever since the time of Mr. Tielman Roos that only in such cases where serious complaints are made the Minister will intervene himself. I must say that on the face of it the complaints made by the hon. member for Pinetown present a strong prima facie case, and in any case a strong necessity for investigation. I can only assure him that I will do it and that I will keep in touch with him. I may assure him that as far as my experience goes the Attorneys-General have done their work very well, but they are bound by the evidence available. But in any case the position is sufficiently grave to be fully investigated, and I will give him the assurance that that will be done. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has put certain grave matters before the House. I wish to give him this assurance— he will know that it is not public policy always to reveal everything—that the matters he complains of will be fully investigated and everything possible done. But I would also like to point out that industrial agitation within the law can never form the subject of a prosecution. We can only act where there has been a breach of the law. If hon. members think that the law should be changed, that is a matter for the House to decide. We can only deal with the law as it is. At the present time any section or party has the fullest right to make any propaganda which is not subversive or contrary to the law, and any section can make any industrial propaganda, and organise on industrial lines, but that is certainly not a matter with which this Department will interfere; that is entirely a matter for Parliament.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is very fond of standing up here and relating what he did in the Boer War. He writes about it in “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly” and says: “This is history.” I would like to ask him to tell us where he wielded a weapon in the Boer War and where he fought for the Free State.

I want hon. members to put these personalities aside. I must rule now that they revert to the vote.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hospital started the ball rolling and he persisted in saying that we were telling lies. I think we are entitled from our side to demand an opportunity of replying to him.

I just want to ask the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) not to take this matter too far. He can give an answer to the accusation.

May I point out to you further that the Minister has made a speech here about the member for Hospital and he said that he participated in the war?

It is the duty of that hon. member to tell us plainly where he took up arms. He declared that the Ossewa-Brandwag had put two bombs in his house. We are not talking of that kind of war.

I did not say that.

He must furnish us with sworn affidavits by witnesses, other than Jews, to tell us where he wielded a weapon in the Boer War in the defence of the Free State. The Minister of Justice deemed it advisable this afternoon to advance an argument in favour of his friend. One cannot blame him for it. The hon. member for Hospital has so far taken charge of this vote for the Minister of Justice, and if the Acting Prime Minister only knew of the conversations which have been taking place between that member and the Minister of Justice in the passages during the last eight days, he would realise that the formation of a new party or a new combination is self-evident. The combination on the other side is so apparent and every member who sits over there and looks me in the face knows quite well what is going on. Talk about sabotage! If sabotaging a party were an offence, then the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Hospital would both be chained up by now and not only interned. However, I will drop this point. I want to come to the vote of the Minister of Justice and to something which for the last four years I have brought to the Minister’s attention. It is the increase of stock thefts in South Africa. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention that as far back as 1942 he used the following words. He said that he was discussing the question with the Wool Growers’ Association and with the agricultural unions. Inter alia he said this—

And listen to this—

The Minister said clearly that they could introduce legislation as soon as they had tested out a certain memorandum which the farmers had submitted to them. At a later stage I once again raised the matter and the Minister made the following declaration a year later, in 1943—

But later on in his speech he went further and said—

Then I come to last year after having plodded along with this matter since 1942 with the Minister. I put the following question to the Minister—

And then in the year 1944 the Minister made this reply—

The Minister said that as there was no increase in the number of cases reported, he did not intend to introduce legislation to amend the Act. I then asked him how many cases of stock theft had been reported in the various years, and I will now read the figures for the years 1941, 1942 and 1943—

Take note of the Minister’s viewpoint. In the first instance he said that he was considering a certain memorandum which the farmers had submitted to him, and at a later stage he said that he was busy considering the matter but that he did not know whether new legislation would help. At the end he said that it was no longer necessary to introduce the Bill, and stock thefts are increasing. The Minister is not concerned about these things. He allowed the police to go out of the country and the stock thieves now reign supreme. I wonder if there is any other form of theft in the country which is taking place on such a large scale as stock thefts. In the last few months I have been constantly receiving letters from my constituency in connection with the matter. At a public meeting I was requested to ask what had become of the Minister’s promise. I then said: “But you must remember it is Colin Steyn. He never says ‘no’, he always tells you to go and see Wildy.” But it is no joke when somebody comes along and steals 300 or 400 sheep during the night from a farmer. You have only to ask any stock farmer. There are stock farmers sitting in front of me. It is appalling and the position is that the police actually suspect certain people but the Act is such that they cannot go to a farmer’s farm without a warrant, even if they do suspect him. For years now we have appealed to the Minister to amend the Act. The Minister must tell us whether he intends to do anything in the matter. Surely he must give us the assurance that he will introduce amending legislation next year.

I had not intended taking part in this debate, but I feel that I cannot allow the criticisms of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) to go unchallenged. The hon. member for Tembuland is a member of very long standing in this House; he is also a member of the Native Affairs Commission and one would have hoped that he would have chosen his words with more care when he speaks in this House. I challenge the statement of the hon. member for Tembuland in relation to the state of unrest that exists in the Transkei territories, and I challenge him to show that there are any Communistic tendencies of any importance amongst the natives of the Transkei. On what evidence does he base his request to the hon. Minister to keep his eyes on these things? He suggests, first of all, that there were people going through the country inciting the African people to work only seven hours a day for five days a week on the farm, and he called that Communistic propaganda. That is not a question of Communism at all; it is really an industrial question. Then the hon. member quotes cases of schoolboys causing a certain amount of disturbance. How can he base charges of Communistic propaganda on the statements of the hon. member made here. It very often happens that these institutions cause a certain amount of disturbance amongst the people by their own regulations. I say without fear of contradiction that in most of those cases these troubles which have arisen in the institutions have no political significance whatsoever. All this talk of unrest has an industrial basis. It is simply a fight between the employer and the worker. The worker wants a decent return for the work he puts in, and I am glad to hear from the hon. Minister that it is not the intention of the Minister to regard these activities as subversive. I do not say that I approve of these incidents at the educational institutions, but I think it is quite wrong for a person in the position’ of the hon. member for Tembuland, a member of the Native Affairs Commission, to give the House the impression that the Transkei is rife with Communistic propaganda. A statement which is completely untrue. I just want to quote the opinion of the Native Affairs Department itself in relation to this state of unrest. On page 24 of the 1944-’45 report of the Native Affairs Department we find these words under the heading of “Unrest”—

We have urged very strongly that an enquiry should be made into urban regulations to see what their effects are. It seems to me that this is an additional reason for asking the Minister to enquire into these things in order to remove the causes of dissatisfaction which undoubtedly exist. The report goes on to say—

That is the background of this state of unrest. Unless steps are taken by us to remove those causes of unrest, the unrest will increase and I feel that it is time for the Department to take into consideration the effect of these regulations. I say there is no ground for the allegation that the native people as a whole or even a large proportion of them are being influenced in any way by Communistic propaganda. I have here a definition of Communism which reads—

I can imagine nothing that is less consistent with the ideals of life that the native people have. Communism is the last thing they would embrace, and I think it is a great pity that there should be some suggestion by hon. members on this side of the House that there is successful Communistic propaganda amongst the natives in the Transkei. I say that as long as you have this situation that a man cannot have a decent wage to enable him to support himself and his family, so long will we have this state of unrest in the country.

I myself in my youthful days have been guilty of reading that definition of Communism, and I do not think it carries us very much further. As a matter of theory, that definition is all very well, but what we have to deal with in the Union is not the theory of Communism, but the Communistic Party in South Africa, and those are two entirely different things. While the Communist Party in South Africa may hold to that conventional theory of Communism, they adopt the policy which is far from being communistic. However, I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) when he says that communistic propaganda is not rife in the Transkei. My purpose in intervening in the debate is to dissociate, and dissociate as strongly as I can, the Labour Party of which I am a representative with the Communist Party. It is an important thing and this debate has given me an opportunity, wide as its ramifications have been in connection with Communism to emphasise the point. The Nationalist Party, I believe, are just a trifle afraid of the Labour Party, and, as I have said, in a previous speech, they make propaganda in the country districts—though not in this House where we would have an opportunity of rebutting it—their propaganda in the country districts in this country is undoubtedly propaganda based on the belief that the Labour Party has a communistic basis, that the Labour Party is in favour of Communism which stands for equality, politically, socially and economically, for the non-European and I want to take this opportunity of saying that that is definitely not the policy of the Labour Party. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said that I had mixed up Communism with Democracy. I do not know whether he meant Communism, I think he said Communism, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that what he really meant was that I mixed up the Communist Party of South Africa with Democracy. Communism is a theory which says: From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. That, I believe, is a Christian ideal which I heard some hon. members the other day trying to impress upon this House when they were discussing the Kakamas business. An ideal economic state is the state where each individual gives to the community according to his ability and takes from the general pool what he needs to enable him to live the sort of life he likes to live. That is the theory. But when the hon. member suggests that I mix up the Communist Party in South Africa with Democracy, then I say that I do no such mixing. If the hon. member wants to know something about Communism he should come to the Labour Party. The chief reason which has been advanced by the British Labour Party and by the Australian Labour Party and the South African Labour Party in opposing any possibility of agreeing to an affiliation of the Communist Party, is precisely the reason that they are not democratic parties.

What about the French Socialists; what is your attitude towards them?

Let me deal with this point.

I asked you a civil question; do you regard the Socialists of France as being on the same line as your Labour* Party?

I do not want to deliver a lecture on Socialism because the hon. member ought to know ….

Are you a Socialist?

Yes. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has now woken up. I gather that he said yesterday; that he was a Socialist. All I can say is that if he is a Socialist, I am probably an anarchist. We know the hon. member started off as a Unionist when he fought the present Minister of Labour. As a matter of fact, I remember a particularly brilliant cartoon published in the hon. member’s own home town, Bloemfontein, where the hon. member is shown entering his dressing room in which there are five coats all labelled with the names of different parties, and the hon. member says to himself: “Which one shall I wear this morning”.

Are you talking about Churchill or me?

Do you see the hon. member’s presumption, Mr. Chairman. He is presumptuous enough to compare himself with Mr. Churchill. However, if the hon. member will keep quiet and stop interpolating into what is sensible debating, we may get a little forward in this House. I am explaining to the hon. member for Beaufort West, that it is precisely because we agree that the Communist Party, as we know it in South Africa, and as it is known in England and New Zealand and Australia, where those parties have no connection with Soviet Russia is not a democratic party, that we do not want the affiliation of the Communist Party. I do not know, but if I were asked my opinion, I would go so far as to say that the Communist Party in South Africa, for instance, would not find itself too popular in Russia.

That is not what Bill Andrews says.

The various Labour Parties in the British Commonwealth have refused affiliation to the Communist Party precisely because of the fact that they are not Democratic parties. They believe in a dictatorship; they believe in a leadership which is a dictatorship, and for that reason we of the Labour Party are not prepared to have any truck with them. Neither are we prepared to allow them to affiliate, and, as hon. members will know, during the last election, the Communist Party actually put up candidates against the Labour Party, and in one constituency they actually selected someone who is a friend, I gather, of the hon. member—Mrs. Hilda Watts.

What is her maiden name?

I only know her by the name of Mrs. Hilda Watts. As to her maiden name, I did not know the lady in those interesting days. The hon. member said—just what it has to do with the hon. Minister of Justice, I do not know, because if the hon. member for Beaufort West has the idea that the Minister of Justice can settle the affairs of Trieste or that he can settle the Polish question, then the Nationalists have been wasting their time because they have been telling us for hours just what an incompetent Minister the Minister of Justice is, but if the Nationalists expect the Minister to solve all those complicated international problems, then their previous allegations as to his alleged inefficiency must be very far wide off the mark, because if the hon. Minister of Justice can even suggest a solution to one of those questions, then he is a heaven-sent genius. I do not think our own Prime Minister, who is in San Francisco now, will be able to suggest a solution to a number of these questions. So this line of talk does not take hon. members of the Opposition very far. On the one hand it is anti-Communism and on the other hand it is anti-semitism. I come back to the line of talk of the hon. member for Beaufort West, and I want to suggest to him that the kind of Nationalism which he as the spokesman of his Party, puts forward, must be very far removed from democracy, because surely democracy in any given country, is not a question of where you were born. Surely democracy is a matter of equality amongst the people of the country. But the hon. member for Beaufort West, and his colleagues’ idea of democracy is an idea which says that if you are a member of the purified Nationalist Party then you will be permitted to take your part in the democracy which we propose to set up but even if you are an Afrikaner, even if you have fought for the independence of South Africa, but you are not a member of the purified Nationalist Party, then you have no place in our State.

You know that is nonsense.

Your official journal in the Transvaal, the “Transvaler”, one of the most unspeakable journals in the Union of South Africa, published on VE-Day a special supplement, for which the Government was stupid enough to give them extra paper, a picture of Gen. Smuts with these words: “The man who stabbed Gen. Hertzog in the back”. [Time limit.]

I did not intend to take part in this important debate about Communism. It is a matter that of course requires proper study. But I want to say that I am specially thankful to learn that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) also repudiates Communism. He wishes to have nothing to do with it. He would be ashamed to be a Communist. It is something that is un-Afrikaans and it does not suit our country, and today I want to say that if there is’ one thing that Afrikanerdom—I use the word in a general sense and I mean English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking people—if there is one thing that will solidify Afrikanerdom for the maintenance of European civilisation in the country it is the threatening danger of Communism. It ought not to be a Party question, because if there is one danger that threatens our country it is Communism, and it is here that I am afraid the Minister of Justice falls short. He is one of those who still consider it is a matter in which we can let things slide. It is a matter in which action must be taken at once. Someone said here this morning that there are movements for the people to group together to take the law into their own hands. That ought not to be necessary and it is not right. The police force is there for that, but you can only use the police force for that pin-pose when the Minister says to them: I expect you to do your duty. It is here we warn the Minister, that as an Afrikaner, he must do his duty. However, I have not stood up to talk about Communism. There is another point I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is the question of internments. We are thankful that most of the internees are no longer in the camp. The fact remains that in our country it was possible—and this is something that we shall not forget for a long time—for Afrikaners who were born here to be locked up in the internment camps, not for months but for years, without any charge being brought against them, and without them having a trial. We maintain it is a disgrace that those people were interned without their guilt being proved. If they were guilty we agree that they ought to be punished. But they had no opportunity of having a trial. We say it is a shame that such people are interned, though their guilt is not proved. If they were guilty we would agree they ought to be punished, but they have had no opportunity to appear in court. Today these people are affected, but tomorrow or the next day it may be someone else, and consequently I say that we cannot easily forget that Afrikaners born in this country have been shoved into the internment camp without any charge being brought against them and without any trial. But as some of them have now been released I want to make an appeal to the Minister to remove the restrictions that have been placed on them since their release. For instance, they may not return to the district where they resided before they were interned. They may not return to their old activities. A school teacher, for instance, may not return to a school. I want to appeal to the Minister that where such restrictions have been imposed they should be lifted. I must say that I have always found the chief control officer very sympathetic. He gave me full particulars about the various cases regarding which I saw him, and I was often satisfied with the explanations he gave. But to a certain extent his hands are tied, because the Minister has to lay down the policy. Recently I was interested in a case of a teacher who was interned. He has now been released but one of the conditions of his release is that he must live on a farm. One letter after the other comes to him from his family. They complain they cannot make a living, and they plead that the teacher should be allowed to return to the village where he could resume his work. I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to lift these restrictions. There is no reason today why these people should be punished any further. The time has arrived when those restrictions should be lifted, and what better time than now? It is a matter I want to bring to the Minister’s attention. Then there is another matter, and as a commission has been appointed to investigate penal reform I want the Minister to instruct that commission to investigate this aspect of the matter as well. We have had a long debate here about prison affairs, and we have heard from hon. members how natives and others have frequently been dumped in gaol for offences of a minor character, for statutory infringements, and in this way they are turned into criminals. Where a man is guilty of a crime he must be punished. But we also give the man an opportunity to defend himself, and to become a useful member of society again. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to apply the system that was applied in the Cape for a long time at Constantia. In those days the prisoners were placed on farms; the warder accompanied them to their work at the farmer’s place. When you do this you can also classify the prisoners into various groups. You can allow the class who are not bad criminals to work on the farm and keep them away from the hardened criminals, and thereby you will be serving a double purpose. You give the man, in the first place, an opportunity to improve himself, and on the other hand, knowing that there is a great shortage of labour, you give an opportunity to the farmer to use that labour. I realise it may probably only be the big farmers who will be in a position to utilise prisoners on the farms in considerable numbers. The big farmers will consequently derive the benefit, but at the same time the small farmer will also gain an indirect advantage, because the other natives whom the big farmers would have engaged will be available for the smaller farmers. In this manner thousands of people can be made available. The State will be able to save thousands of pounds because we know that every year it costs the State thousands of pounds to keep these people in gaol. We know that the allowances paid to those prisoners are very small, but in any case the State will then have an income, however small, and not the great expense it has today. I want to appeal to the Minister to investigate this aspect of the matter. I think it is one of the things that commission should enquire into. In that manner a service of great value could be instituted for the farmers, and one which otherwise would be lost.

I have accumulated statistics from which I find that in the last five years there have been no fewer than 229,000 convictions in South Africa for liquor offences. I want to make it quite clear at the outset, that I am not a fanatic with regard to the inhibition of alcohol, but I certainly am very strong on the abuse of alcohol. I would like to point out as far as these 229,000 convictions for liquor offences are concerned, that I think a reasonable estimate is that this represents only about one-tenth of the known cases, and if one computes that by means of elementary mathematics one comes within the range of 2,000,000. I want to put this question to hon. members: does it mean nothing to this House that when one walks down the streets one finds that many food shops are closed, one finds that the shops selling clothing are closed, but it appears that there always has been an abundance and super-abundance of intoxicating liquor for sale at any time, and medically speaking I have found that there have never been any shortage of methodsfor the prevention of child birth during a war. I have therefore found that there has always been a super abundance of these two factors, one to destroy life economically and socially and the other to prevent life from coming into the world, but on the other hand there has been a shortage of the essentials of life, clothing and food. It is no use the Hon. Minister of Justice and his advisers telling me that this cannot be controlled to a certain measure. There are, of course certain ways by which it can be done. There is the method that has been tried by America, that of total prohibition, which we frankly confess is undesirable, not only here but in any country.

It is ineffective.

Apart from the fact that it is ineffective it is also undesirable. Then we also have the coupon system and the permit system, and then we have the question of local option. We have read the evidence produced by the Secretary for Native Affairs, Mr. Smit, and we find in his evidence that the farmers themselves are becoming disappointed in the quality of the labour they have on their farms. They are disappointed because that labour is gradually deteriorating to such an extent that they are anxious to replace it with native labour. Now we are getting some support from our various churches in this matter. We should take cognisance of the fact, and we should deplore, that a director of the K.W.V. should have made a public statement to the effect that his method of combating this evil is simply to build extra rooms on to the bars into which these people could be thrown until they sobered up. We should take cognisance of the fact the Judge President of our Supreme Court stated in 1943—

We should take cognisance of the fact that the judges in Britain have worked out the percentage of crime due to liquor. Judge Rintoul said that about 94 per cent. of all the crime in Britain is attributable to the abuse of alcohol. These things must mean something to us. What has happened at Wynberg should be sufficient incentive for me to bring up this matter before the House. There we found the non-European people pleading with an ineffective Liquor Licensing Board “Close the bars from 2 to 5 on Fridays.” The Licensing Board eventually does so, and immediately you find an enormous improvement in the whole of the Wyhberg area. Then owing to some legal technicality the decision is reversed, the bars are re-opened during those hours, and those hon. members who want to know the effect have simply to go to Wynberg, and see for themselves. We have another illustration of the point I am making in what happened at Kenhardt. Two brothers holding a liquor licence and who did not comply with the law in strict detail were compelled, through breaches of the Act, to close down. Immediately the number of convictions in Kenhardt dropped from 25 a week to 2. Of course the power of money asserted itself and although the brothers lost their case in the court below they won it on appeal and re-opened their bars. And today the gaol is again full. I am not going to weary the House by discussing the effect of alcohol on the organs of the body. I am not a total abstainer myself. I am speaking here of the abuse of alcohol. If our courts of justice regard this pernicious factor in our social system in so serious a light it is high time the Department of Justice and every section of the community addressed themselves to the task of rectifying this abuse of alcohol with special reference to this tot system whereby liquor is given too freely to farm labourers.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Le Roux) a little earlier in the debate, with his customary courtesy and moderation, delivered himself of a state-ment that the native representatives are trying to provoke bloodshed between Mack and white. One might have been disposed to demand a withdrawal of that statement but we have sat here for eight years and I do not think we have Once asked for the protection of the Chair. We know these things will be flung at us because anybody who represents the black man will be the target of wild accusations of that kind hurled at him across the floor of the House. I actually would not have taken any notice personally of a statement of that sort, except to describe it as a gross impertinence. But for the fact that we represent the native people, and this kind of statement flung at the elected representatives ’of the native people does harm. I know that most hon. members will not take any notice of what the hon. member for Ladybrand says, but the native people are less well informed of the kind of person he is and may be inclined to attach some importance to his statement. Knowing it is an utter falsehood they would naturally be disturbed and angry at such an allegation being hurled at their representatives. He is doing no service to the cause of co-operation between black and white my making a wild and silly statement of that sort. It is just a silly statement, and the hon. member knows it. There is another matter in the same category, the speech made by the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) last night. He also attacked a native representative, but not one sitting in this House. Before dealing with that I want to say I thought the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) was very naïve in dissociating himself and his party from the Communist Party because hon. members over there are not bothered about the Communist Party. They know that they and other parties in the House are quite capable of dealing with the Communist Party by ordinary political methods. They are concerned with throwing aspersions and making attacks on anybody who wants to improve the conditions of the coloured and native peoples in this country. The hon. member for Gezina accused Senator Basner, who is also an elected representative of the natives of high treason. I was not here when he spoke but I took the precaution of looking up in Hansard the actual words he used. I shall read them out—

There is no ambiguity about that. It is a charge of high treason. I also want to know from the Minister what the documents are that the hon. member referred to. I cannot imagine a more serious allegation against a member of Parliament than a charge of high treason—made in the interests of party propaganda. Either a charge should be laid or an investigation made such as Senator Basnes himself asked for, or the individual who made these charges should be exposed once and for all. I submit a member of either House of Parliament is entitled to have his name cleared when charges of this nature are made. My information is these charges are totally untrue. I do not want to go into the merits of the matter; there were certainly some infringements of the trust regulations, natives having ploughed where they were not allowed to plough. If that is rebellion equivalent to Slagters Nek I should like to know how many rebellions there have been in South Africa. I say that this is a serious charge and the member who has made it should be called upon to withdraw it. I have discussed it with the hon. Senator and he has asked me to ask the Minister to take action in terms of this charge because it is typical of the sort of thing that is flung across the floor of the House from the Opposition benches when native questions are under discussion. In my submission the statements are entirely irresponsible. I remember another occasion when a number of natives were shot down in Pretoria when there was some trouble about wages, and when a commission of investigation was sitting I heard charges made in this House about this being due to Communist propaganda. The commisison, in their report, said it was due to nothing of the kind. They said the native trade union was not recognised and the difficulty was there was nobody to negotiate with on behalf of the natives, and there had been misunderstandings. The sort of charges that are made of this type are most irresponsible. The facts are always wrong and remind me of the following statement in a recent book called “Your M.P.”

In every Continental development of Fascism, the Fascists have always—when it suited them—lumped together moderate Liberals, Radicals and Socialists of all sorts, and called them all “Communists”. The Gestapo does the same thing today in the occupied countries; When another dozen “hostages” are murdered, whether they are Catholics or Liberals, or of no political party, the Nazis report that “Communists” have been executed.

Hon. members should be warned against taking this sort of propaganda at its face value. It is not a question of who is a Communist or who is not. So far as I know there is no member in this House who is a Communist. These attacks are made on wrong facts in an atmosphere which can only lead to trouble, and hon. members must appreciate their own responsibilities in these matters. Lamentable speeches like those that have been made attacking the native representatives will only cause trouble between black and white. The Secretary for Native Affairs has in his annual report —the hon. member for Transkei. (Mr. Hemming) read it out—stated what the causes are of unrest. They are causes the elimination of which we have pleaded for year, such things as low wages, poor clothing, no medical attention, no opportunities in life, and insufficient education, Those are the things that must be tackled. They must be tackled in a responsible and a moderate way, as we on these benches have always advocated. I cannot too strongly warn this House against the harm that is done outside by speeches such as have been heard this afternoon, more particularly those I have quoted.

When I hear the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) speak like that, I am surprised. If there is anyone who takes every opportunity in this House and outside to incite the natives against the Nationalists, it is that hon. member.

Absolutely untrue.

The same man in his first speech in this House attacked the Nationalists. He said the Nationalists were the greatest danger in South Africa. I say that the danger in South Africa is Communism. I say that the Nationalist Party have always behaved reasonably towards the natives in this country. Let anyone show me, where Nationalists, where Afrikaners, and I include the English speaking Afrikaners, have oppressed the natives in this country. One can quote speeches here which indicate how well we have treated the natives in this country, but have people like that hon. member ever gone to the native areas to try to uplift the natives? Or have they always told the natives how difficult a time they are having under the white man? Is it not they who are responsible for all the agitation?

You know it is not true.

Allegations are continually being made by these people as to how the poor natives in the country are being repressed. I want to say that this side of the House are against the idea of natives being oppressed. We want to give the native all the rights to which he is entitled, but we do not want him to be a danger in our country, we do hot want Communism to take root in our country and the natives to become Communists. This country did not know Communism in the past, it is something that has been imported.’ It is something revolutionary and we on our side do not want it, and the Nationalist Party do not want it, and I am certain that any person who is white and who wants South Africa to remain a white man’s country does not want Communism. We want to uplift the natives without Communism, and I believe that our English-speaking friends as well, if I know the English-speaking people, do not want Communism in the country. Accordingly we desire that the germ that has been introduced into the country should be killed in time. We do not want a recurrence of the time when machine-guns had to be used and people had to be shot dead as a result of their having been misled by certain propagandists.

We are not Communists.

I am glad to hear that they are not Communists. But let them act so we may see they are not Communists. Do not let us, when there is any agitation in progress come here and, instead of condemning it, explain it away. It is wrong that they should do this. I feel the time has come when we Europeans in the country must realise that we number 2½ millions and that we should drop all political differences and see to it that western civilisation is protected in our country; but if you introduce Communism it is impossible. I have been told that about 60 per cent. of the coloureds in the Cape are Communists, and I admit that much can be done to keep the people away from Communism. Let us help these people under our system, but do not let a new system be introduced to try to help them in that direction, because you will not be helping them but driving them away and in the end they will have to be shot. I do not wish to speak further on this point, but I want to come back to stock thefts. For quite a few years now we have pleaded with the Minister, for quite a few years the agricultural unions have begged and pleaded for assistance in connection with stock thefts. Gen. Smuts at the beginning of the war sent me to the Minister of Justice. The South African Agricultural Union delegated me to place certain proposals before the Minister. The Minister called me and in the presence of the Commissioner for Police discussed with us a certain system they have in Australia. We told the Minister how the farmers were being ruined Dy stock thefts. I know of one farmer who in five years became bankrupt by stock thefts. The Minister comes every day and says that he wants to do something, that it is being tested, but we get no further. He investigates everything but we get no further. Last year he again said that a new system would be tested in Aliwal and in those areas. What happened we do not know. I only want to say that his officer in the Eastern Province is a man who knows a great deal about stock theft. He has worked in the Transvaal and has studied the old laws of the Transvaal, and he has pointed out certain things in the old laws that would be very effective in combating stock theft; and if the Minister would only take the trouble with his Department to go into the old Transvaal laws and to apply certain of their provisions to our laws, I am convinced that something would be done to reduce stock thefts. Unfortunately, however, the Minister is very prone to clap some people into gaol while others may easily go free. I want to mention one case in connection with which people from his Department acted very stupidly. It is the case of a white man, one of our prominent farmers, who was simply taken away from his family and put into a police van. He is a decent man of very good repute in South Africa, and he was put into a police van and thrown into gaol. He stayed there for l½ or two days. On the first day he could not find bail. What happened then? He was acquited by the court. Now I ask the Minister whether it is right to act in this way in such cases without proper investigation. Does neither the Minister nor the Department realise that such people should be protected? Because once a man is apprehended and brought before the court or placed in gaol a suspicion will always rest on him. What is the Minister going to do to prevent similar cases? I do not want to mention names. The Minister knows what I am talking about, but I must say that the evidence was very weak and the farmers in my neighbourhood are in a rage about it and are going to take further steps. I hope the Minister will see to it that it will not happen again that a person should be apprehended without a proper charge, and put in gaol. What example is that for the natives when they see their master seized, put into a prison van and taken to prison? We should set an example to the natives. We are the last people who want to repress the natives. We feel that they should advance by process of evolution, not through communist ideas of equality with the Europeans, because that cannot happen in South Africa. The Europeans will not tolerate this, and if the agitation is not discontinued there will eventually be a resort to arms.

I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister on the acceptance of the motion for the appointment of a commission on prisons and penal reform, and I am certain that the House is delighted that he has taken early action with a view to implementing his promise. It might be well if I suggested to the Minister he give an indication as to when the commission is likely to commence its work. Then I should like to refer to the Cape Liquor Commission. The Minister says he expects the report some time in September. I want to put the question to the Minister as to the desirability, in view of the importance of the evidence and the economic, social and moral issues involved, of his arranging for a copy of the evidence itself to be made available for members of this House. I think the evidence that has been placed before the commission will be found extremely valuable in discussions that take place on this very important question, particularly as far as the Western Province is concerned. It is well know that the conditions in the Western Province are desperate indeed, especially in regard to the undermining of the non-European section of the community. One day I was going out to the Bellville prison with a senior officer of the Prisons Department and, looking at a vineyard, he said: “The abuse of the product of this is the cause of our prisons being so full” or words to that effect. One has simply to go to Windermere to see what is happening, and there is no need for me to tell the House. On that particular trip, as we passed through Maitland, we saw some men walking across the road with bottles in their pockets, going to Windermere. It is not necessary for me to tell the House the position in regard to the abuse of liquor. Another point is the tremendous cost to this country of the liquor trade in relation to the abuse of liquor. The percentage of revenue through taxation, to the total drink expenditure, direct and indirect, has been estimated at about 14 per cent., whereas in America and Britain it has been estimated to amount to about 37 per cent., so that on that basis it may be said that this industry in South Africa does not contribute as much as it should do towards the cost of the alleviation of the misery and distress and other expenditure which it brings upon the population. You will not allow me, Sir, to go fully into the question of taxation at this stage, I again express the hope the Minister will’ ask the chairman of the Cape Liquor Commission whether it will be possible to have the evidence submitted to hon. members, in fairness not only to the position of temperance advocates, but to the position of the industry itself in the Western Province. I would suggest to the Minister that he gives his attention to the growing menace of gambling and the anomalous position of our laws. We punish people for some harmful forms of gambling while at the same time forms of gambling conducted under the powers of the provinces probably equally harmful, are not subject to punishment at all. What is apparent is the necessity for declaring gambling a national evil and for bringing the relevant administration under the Central Government. There is an attitude of mind which accepts or condones gambling because it provides revenue for the State—a fruitful source of revenue—and we see evidences of that attitude as we read reports or statements from time to time. The Minister may be congratulated on the abolition of pin tables and the like, a great reform affecting the youth of this country.

That was not a gamble; it was a swindle.

A further advance in this direction is needed particularly in the interests of the youth of our country. Finally, I want to refer to the fine work done by the civilian guard. The Minister has referred to that in another place, but it is as well in this House that we should mention the hard and self-sacrificing work cheerfully performed by these men after their day’s duties, and it affects Europeans and non-Europeans alike. The work of the latter deserves special praise, and the experience of the civilian guard in that connection should prove very helpful to the Department of Justice, particularly that section under which it directly falls. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister that before the civilian guard is disbanded he should call representatives to a congress, provincial in the first place, and then a central conference, in order that the experience of these men may be available for the benefit of the Department. I think that during the past five years the ordinary man in the street (in commerce, industry etc.) has to come into touch with the difficulties of our Police Department through the Civilian Guard, and that contact may prove to be of great value in connection with the administration of justice and the treatment of people who have come up against the law, sometimes only statutory laws. Mr. Chairman, I make the suggestion to the Minister that such a conference should be convened, and that it would be very beneficial. May I in connection with the work of nonEuropeans in the Civilian Guard point to an extract from a report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the carrying out the recommendations of the Elliott report—

It is the experience gained along these lines which will prove useful to the Minister if he calls into conference members of the Civilian Guard, and that experience will be of interest and value to the country.

The Minister of Justice challenged us yesterday to mention an instance of communist agitation amongst the natives, and I then referred to a case which last year was mentioned twice in this House, and in respect of which the Minister has not yet given a reply. I specifically referred to the revolt of the natives in Pietersburg. Now the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) spoke about natives who ploughed at a place where they had no right to plough. That hon. member has stolen somebody else’s thunder, and he did not know whose thunder it was. If it was merely a question of natives who ploughed where they should not have ploughed why should a great number of the police from quite a number of districts have been sent to Pietersburg to stop that rising? I stated that those natives were incited by Senator Basner, that he was responsible for it, and I repeat that now.

The hon. member may not make such an accusation against a member of this House or against a member of Another House. It is an accusation of a criminal offence and the hon. member must withdraw that.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I read out a quotation from what the hon. member said yesterday when he made that allegation. He was not stopped then by the Chair and I challenged him to substantiate it. I understand the hon. member is trying to do it now, and in the circumstances, with respect, I think it should be allowed.

I do not think I was in the Chair yesterday, but as I understood the hon. member now he was repeating the allegation. If it is by way of explanation I will allow it.

As I have stated, I made the allegation that those natives were incited on the responsibility of the individual I mentioned. I also said that as far as I knew the Minister was in possession of all the documents. The Minister has not yet given a reply on that, and I want now again to ask him to stand up and give us an explicit reply. The Minister has in his Department the documents relating to the investigation that was instituted, and I shall be grateful if he takes this opportunity to reply and does not again evade the question. This is an extremely important matter, and I challenge the Minister to lay the documents on the Table—all the documents and not just some of them—and then we shall know what the position is, and it will no longer be necessary for a member like the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), who is living in the southern quarter and knows nothing about the conditions in the North, to make an attack and to level charges in connection with what we should do or should not do. As the Minister has stated, the law of the land must be applied all round on the same basis. If Nazi agents are locked up in gaol there must be one law in the country for everyone, and communist agitators should also be put under lock and key. I feel strongly on this matter. Why should an individual, if he holds a certain political view, not be dealt with under the law in the same way as other agitators. I ask the Minister to give us a full statement on this matter. There is only one course open, and that is to put the documents on the Table, not merely a portion of them, but the complete documents, and then we shall be able to judge for ourselves. I have got my information from good sources and it is correct.

In regard to the assertions of the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) I merely wish to tell him that he has made a mistake. The matter was investigated. It was placed before the Attorney-General who decided there was no case.

Will you place the documents on the Table?

No, it is not customary to do that. It is a question for the Attorney-General, and that must be accepted because it is correct. In regard to the question of theft, I want to say that I went into the matter because I realise what difficulties the farmers have to contend with. The big difficulty is in connection with the identification of the sheep. If the farmers can work out a system under which they can identify their sheep we shall be successful in many more cases.

Did you receive the memorandum from the farmers of Lady Grey and Aliwal North, and what became of them?

The whole matter was tested. A Bill was even drafted in order to ascertain how far it could be effective. But the position is that it all will not help until such time as the farmers have evolved a system for identifying their sheep. It is absolutely necessary that this should happen before a conviction can be obtained. Whenever we find that a gang is active at a place we take immediate steps to see if we cannot catch these people red-handed. But I want to emphasise to the agricultural unions they must realise we cannot arrive at any solution of this difficulty in our country unless they discover a method whereunder the farmers will be able to identify their own sheep.

If a person is under suspicion cannot the law be altered so that the police can give notice to the man that they are going on to his farm, and then go and make an investigation.

It is not so easy. That would be tantamount to a big invasion of a person’s rights. It is very dangerous to act on suspicion. If we give the police the right to act on suspicion, as the hon. member indicates, we shall be encroaching a great deal on the common rights of the citizen. The application of anything of that sort may be dangerous. There have been many instances where the sheep have been found in the possession of a man, but the owner could not swear they, were his sheep. In many cases that is our difficulty, and accordingly I urge that we should try to discover a method of identifying the sheep. I appreciate the farmers’ difficulties and I should like to assist, but sympathy carries us no further. We must take practical steps. As far as the police are concerned they are doing the best they can. When we hear that thieves are active in a specific neighbourhood we attempt to catch them. But for every man we catch in the act we could catch 10 if we could have a system for identifying the stock.

What about the ear mark?

Yes, but there are so many people who have the same mark. A farmer buys sheep at an auction and they bear all sorts of marks. But if we can solve this difficulty the whole question will be made much easier.

I forgot this morning to refer to the question raised here by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), the Civilian Guard. I again want to express my very sincere appreciation of the very excellent work they did. It was only the other day that the Commissioner of Police, General I. P. de Villiers, told me of what enormous help they had been, and we hope that for the time being they will still help us, until such time as the men from the North have returned and we can reorganise and recruit on a fairly extensive basis. Both the Civilian Guard and the Civic Guard have rendered services of great value during the difficult times with which we were faced. As regards the very interesting remarks made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) I would like to discuss it further with her personally. I can assure her that the matter will be gone into very fully. I do not want to commit myself but I must say that as far as the magistrate’s court is concerned we will do our best to get the P.W.D. to assist us. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher) has referred to thefts. He will admit that there was a gang and that the gang was broken up as the result of action taken. I do not wish to minimise the thing, but there is crime in every country in the world. I do not wish to minimise anything, but throughout this war crime has not been abnormal. We have had commission after commission, in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, and the reports have all been the same. We have had experienced police officials. In Cape Town we had a man of great experience who says crime is not worse than it was 40 years ago. If you take the increase in population and compare the incidence of crime with other countries, I think our police have rendered extraordinarily good service during these times. But I do not wish to minimise it. We must still do our best to make it less. But if we take questions like sabotage and have regard to the fact that practically all major crimes have been solved, I do not think I need say more on that point. As to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), I think I have given him the reply in answering the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel). As regards the hon. member for Roodepoort the report will be tabled as soon as it is translated. It is difficult for me to say exactly when that will be, but I do not think it is advisable that the evidence of the commission should be made available to the public. There will have to be too many copies and I do not think we should depart from that principle now. He referred to the question of gambling. So far as it is provincial, I cannot deal with it because it is not in my province. As far as lotteries are concerned, I discussed that yesterday, and we have allowed it to a certain extent on behalf of war funds, but that was not really gambling or a lottery because the prizes were out of all proportion. It is really a minute inducement for someone to subscribe to war funds.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) has asked whether we can remove the restrictions that have been imposed on people who have been released. Such a person may always make application to the magistrate, and in the majority of cases these restrictions have been lifted after three months. If they remain in force any longer it is the fault of the people themselves for not having made application.

Why do you not abolish them immediately in respect of everyone?

We cannot do it immediately.

What is there to prevent you?

I am sorry the hon. member is bringing up the matter in this way because it may do more harm than good. Take the case of the schoolmaster and the case where dynamite was involved. In that case we supported the man’s wife and children. It is obvious we cannot immediately let such a person be at large. It does not do a man like that any good to have his case brought up here. There is an immediate reaction from the other side, because we must realise that two opinions are held in connection with these matters. If people are interested in helping the parties concerned they should rather come and interview me on the matter, because it does these people no good to give all the details here. The hon. member for Pietersburg stated further that it will remain a disgrace to our country that people were interned here. In that he does not agree with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who has stated here, and correctly, that internment is something we have had in all other countries, Germany, Italy and in other countries.

He did not speak about the internment of our own subjects.

We spoke in general. As wars are conducted at present it is impossible to do otherwise. In every country in the world people have been interned. The people who are still being interned have been interned in connection with the attack on the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). It would be disastrous for many of them to be brought now before the court. We want to protect those people. There has been talk about the case of Louis Nel; he was shot; and we must take into consideration that such things may happen again. What was the object of the attack on the offices of the control official and on the watchmen with a view to taking documents away? I shall tell you what the intention was. It was to discover what people gave information and to settle scores with them. It has been asked why we did not bring these people before the court. In many cases it was preferable to intern them. Take those young lads of 18 and 19, where the offences were not of a serious character. It was much better to place them in internment camps than to put them in gaol. Take other cases where we know that the people were guilty; must we allow those people to run around?

You say you know they are guilty?

Yes.

How do you know?

We have evidence.

Why then have they not been brought before the court.

Because we want to protect the witnesses so that they will not be dealt with as Nel was dealt with.

Then you are protecting people who are guilty, you are protecting criminals.

We are not protecting the criminals but the people who gave us the information. The hon. member knows why Nel was shot and murdered. I think it ought to be clear to him. Then there is another point.

Will you bring them before the court later?

That depends on the witnesses. If the hon. member will only listen he will realise what I am saying. In some instances we want to protect the people, and in other cases we gave the promise that if the information was given to us we would not bring the people before the court. That was the only way in which we could get the information, and I maintain that had we not followed that policy sabotage would have been much worse and a considerable number of members on the other side would already have been assaulted.

I do not intend to confine my remarks to Communism. I think we have heard enough about that in this debate. My intention in rising is to answer briefly the remarks of the hon. members for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) and Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), and their somewhat veiled attack on the wine industry. We have heard from these members about the curse of drunkenness, the results of drunkenness, the enormous amount of crime resulting from drunkenness. I do not think any right thinking person in this House will defend drunkenness. But on this liquor question there are two lines of thought. There is the one section which thinks that you are going to make a man sober by legislation. There is also the other side which wants the use of liquor to be too absolutely free. The hon. member for Gardens has painted a very gloomy picture of the curse of drink. As one who represents a wine growing district, and who has had the privilege of mixing very freely with wine farmers and who is closely interested in the way they run their farm, I can assure this House that there is no section of our community more against drunkenness than the wine farmers. One need only go on their farms to see what strict conditions they apply to their labourers to avoid drunkenness on farms and one must come to the conclusion that they are the keenest people of all to protect the labourer. Now, we know, from what is said at licensing boards and from statistics given by the police that it is stated that there is an increase in drunkenness. As we have had it from the Minister of Justice, going by statistics is not a very fair criterion, for this reason, that one had, especially during the war years, an enormous increase in the community here, and in certain districts where there were 200 convictions for drunkenness previously, there were now 400, but the community itself may have increased by thousands. That to my mind does not prove anything much. What we do know is this, that the Licensing Boards throughout the country, and particularly in the Western Province have year after year brought in restrictions. In the olden days the coloured bars were allowed to remain open until 8 o’clock on Saturday evenings. That was first restricted to 6 o’clock and then to 4 o’clock, and now in most of the country districts they close at one o’clock.

And is it not bettter now?

No, it is not. They curtail the hours year after year and then complain that drunkenness is worse. It proves just the opposite. The greater the restriction the greater is the drunkenness. The European section of our community have almost entirely free hours to obtain liquor, from 10 in the morning to 10 p.m. and later. You do not find Europeans frequenting shebeens. They are not run for the benefit of Europeans because Europeans have facilities to get liquor. But the unfortunate coloured man is deprived of that privilege. The hon. member for Gardens referred to the decision of one Licensing Board closing coloured bars on Fridays at 2 o’clock until 10 o’clock on Monday mornings and they then found that the position was deplorable. The member for Roodepoort said that he went through the suburbs and saw any number of men with sacks on their shoulders, full of liquor. That is correct. Coming in one morning, on a Thursday, from Paarl, just this side of Bellville I found 100 to 200 coloured people all with sacks. In some cases there may have been two or three bottles in the bag, but others were heavily laden. I calculate that approximately 600 to 800 bottles of wine must have been carried by those people I saw on that Thursday. Why? They are paid on a Friday. The canteens are closed at 2 p.m. on Friday, so they actually miss a day’s wages in order to get liquor. The more you restrict the coloured men the more drunkenness will increase. Many years ago a commission went about the Western Province districts to go into the cause of drunkenness. They found the most drunkenness at a little place called either Riebeek Kasteel or Riebeek West—I am not sure which. There they found the highest percentage of drunkenness. And how many liquor houses were there? Not one. So where there are no facilities for these people to get liquor drunkenness was the highest. The reason is that these people send then runners or their families to adjoining places to get liquor. No, there is no doubt about it that our Liquor Act wants revising; we must have a new Liquor Act, but to say that we must restrict and in that way keep down drunkenness is all wrong. The member for Gardens referred to a remark alleged to have been made by the Chairman of the K.W.V. I cannot very well contradict that, but I have never seen that remark anywhere before; but the remark which I know was made not only by the Chairman of the K.W.V., but which is also the policy of the K.W.V., is this, that they feel that the facilities and conditions under which the coloured people are served with liquor in then canteens should be improved. Mr. Kohler, the Chairman, mentioned on several occasions at big meetings that we must improve these places, and let them have a decent lounge, decently if not luxuriously furnished, and let them have better conditions, and let them be served with a snack or a sandwich, and sit down in decent conditions, and we will very soon uplift these people.’ I fully agree with that view. As I said just now, the wine farmers are as keen as anyone to see sobriety amongst their labourers and if these labourers would only make use of the wines they get on the farms they would never become the worse for liquor. The farmers give them a sound healthy light wine.

Why do you not give them more pay and less wine?

In answer to the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) let me relate what happened in Paarl. A prominent wine farmer employing about 50 boys started giving them extra pay and tea or coffee instead of the wine. He was very proud of the fact, and he spread the report through the district that he was reforming these fellows, that they were quite satisfied with getting their extra 3d. or 6d. a day ….

No wonder you drive them to drink, 3d. a day!

I said an extra 6d. or 1s., instead of the wine they got this extra money with tea and coffee. Some months later this farmer was before the Licensing Board and he said: “I want you to come to the assistance of the farmers, it is absolutely chronic the quantity of liquor brought to the farms on Fridays.” A number of other farmers present said: “We have not got this trouble, how is it, do you not give your boys their tot?” The farmer replied that he did not, that he gave them the extra money and the’ coffe and tea. They said: “There you are, that is the explanation.” You cannot take the wine from these labourers who are accustomed to their tot, and the result was that they brought in their own stocks of liquor, and double the quantity at that.

I do not want to touch on the question of Communism at this stage because hon. members on this side, and more particularly the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) have already put very clearly, in the course of their speeches, the attitude of our Party and the principles we hold in connection with Communism. I would, however, say in reference to the disappointing reply from the Minister, in reference to the hollowness of his reply: I want to draw his attention to a few things in connection with Communism. His excuse is, though he gives the impression to us that communist propaganda really is carried out in the country, that as it were he stands powerless because there is no open breach of any law. Then he asks us that, when there is any breach of a law, we should tell him where and how, and he will then institute enquiries and take steps against the agitators, orthose indulging in communist propaganda. Does the Minister not know, does he not recall that all laws are brushed aside in time of war? During the period that he has been Minister of Justice his Government has thrust aside nearly all the laws and over the course of five years has used emergency regulations to govern, and if the Minister tells me that he really in his heart regards the communists as a menace—and he must regard them in this light because he and his Government entered the war supposedly for right and justice, for Christianity and decency and Democracy—if that is the case, that he regards Communism as a danger, and if they really fought for these things, he can easily adopt measures against the Communism that has to such a great extent already taken root in our country. If he really does fear that all the noble things for which they were supposed to have fought are going to be destroyed, he should not reproach us when we complain that agitation is taking place and that the pernicious doctrine of Communism is being openly preached by natives in secret and by Europeans in public. You use emergency regulations under which you continually put Afrikaners in the gaols and the camps, sometimes without the slightest reason, without a charge and without trial. Sometimes after a long period you have released them, and even today they do not know what their offence was. You have acted there on gossip and taken the most drastic steps under the emergency regulations. You have not yet lifted the emergency regulations. Use them then to prevent such an incident occurring in our country as when 10,000 non-Europeans were congregated under the direction of Europeans and marched through the streets under the slogan of “We must now fight for our rights, the time has arrived”. With such dangerous slogans and sentiments they marched through the streets. How are they going to fight? We infer from that there is going to be violence.

Their pamphlets talk about civil war.

Yes, as the hon. member says, their pamphlets talk of civil war. Russian flags were sold to them with the hammer and sickle. Pictures appeared in the newspapers. The Minister knows it, and if he does not we are telling him what the position is, and if he really does notice the danger of Communism then he must not come along with the excuse that there has been no breach of the ordinary laws. Use the emergency regulations. Pull up a few of the leaders. Then he will be doing the country a great service and he will also prove to us he is suiting his action to his word. I want to warn him. Do not let the situation deteriorate in such a way that force may later be required to arrest the danger. He ought to smother it in its infancy. I spoke about the action of the Minister in connection with internments, the internment of people against whom there has been no charge, and who have not had any trial. They have been put in the camps and released after a long period. Those of us who made representations for the release of certain political prisoners are thankful that they were released, but some of the internees the Minister released are still under strict control, they are still on parole. These people cannot move. They are clamped down and cannot seek a living nor accept a job. I have a specific instance in my constituency. This person was released by the Minister a year ago. He was never charged and never tried. He was just interned. He has now been out of gaol for a year, and after this long period he is still under control and on parole. His parents are poor and broken down. He is their breadwinner.

Why does he not make application?

-Eight months ago I made application. I will tell the Minister what the result was of my application. In October of last year I wrote sending to the chief control officer a nice letter from the parents, who were sickly and broken down and needed assistance. The reply was—

The chief control officer wrote further—

That was in October last year. Today he is still under control. I did not leave it there, but again at the commencement of the Session I brought up the case in reference to the reply I received from the chief control official. On the 28th April I received a post card from him—

In October last year the committee was supposed to have gone into these cases of people who were released but who were placed under control. Eight months ago I brought up the matter and still nothing has happened. I brought it up again, and received this reassuring post card. The day before yesterday I again received a letter from the parents of the lad as to why their son cannot be released. The Minister says that I should not mention names because that might do no good. I took up the matter outside the House, in accordance with his wish. Perhaps there is slackness in the office of the chief control officer. I shall be glad if the Minister will release this person so that he may make a living and assist his needy parents.

There is a further matter of considerable importance I have mentioned to the Minister, and I hope he may be able, in the course of the debate, to deal with the serious aspect of it. On the 1st February, 1945, one of the leading newspapers in Durban wrote on inquest procedure pointing out that the Minister of Justice should order an immediate investigation into the way inquests are held in South Africa. It was pointed out that the inquest procedure has deteriorated in this country into a mere formal repetition of statements made on oath by certain persons who do not actually appear before the inquest magistrates. They may have made these statements before a justice of the peace or a first class sergeant. It is pointed out, quite rightly, that the primary object is to ascertain the cause of death, but also it is intended to discover the circumstances under which death took place and that the somewhat perfunctory procedure which has come into vogue is not serving adequately to draw attention to the circumstances in which some of these deaths occur. There is very little publicity. It may not be apparent that, a person is an unsatisfactory witness because he is not there in person. His statement is very often accepted without his appearance before the inquest magistrate at all. Another point is the long delay that takes place. I mentioned this morning the case of a murder that took place in December, 1942 and the inquest was not held until the middle of. July, 1943. That shows a certain amount of slackness and delay in holding these inquests. Then I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to a body known as the O.B. During the course of the war I was told that there was considerable evidence of the fact that this body was financed from funds that came from Germany, and my informant went so far as to say that something like £1,000,000 had been spent in connection with that organisation, which owed its origin to Germany. I am not in a position to allege that that information was sworn to, or upon what facts it was founded, but the official who communicated that information in my presence to another was a very prominent official and one who ought to have known a great deal about this matter. I hope if this organisation in any way derives support from funds of that kind that the matter will be thoroughly probed and we shall have some action taken against it. I notice nobody has paid such a heartfelt tribute to the late Adolf Hitler as the leader of the O.B. There was also an almost tearful tribute paid to Mussolini by the same gentleman. Those were not the only gestures of sorrow by a certain gentleman who masquerades round the country as an “O.B.”’ general, in uniform from time to time. I do not know what brand of uniform it is, but I am told by a prominent Parliamentarian he goes round in uniform and rejoices in the salutes given to him by his followers. I hope a close watch will be kept on this organisation. I have before me a publication, “Some Facts About the O.B.”, a booklet that has been published. There is a title “Propaganda refuted”. If this is a refutation of propaganda it seems a very poor effort. Actually this is practically a declaration that if this Party ever comes into power we shall have Hitlerism revived in this country. We are to have one Party only, and all other parties will be regarded as illegal and dealt with accordingly. It seems to me that unless a firm attitude is adopted at an early date towards this mushroom organisation we are going to have a pestilential lot of trouble before we are done with it. There is another matter I want to mention, and that is the increasing lawlessness amongst the natives, who are unemployed for one cause or another. There have been serious demonstrations on this account. The town engineer of Pinetown was assaulted some weeks ago by a gang of these natives and he had to be taken to Addington Hospital, Durban, and has been a casualty ever since. I hope that the Minister will realise these occurrences are becoming very frequent, and the police* should give proper attention to them. May I, on this occasion, take the opportunity of saying I very much regret to hear of the imminent retirement of Major.-Gen. I. P. de Villiers the Commissioner of Police. I believe from a very close knowledge of what took place in the early days of the war this country owes a great deal to his far-sightedness and the firmness he exhibited as well as the preparations which Gen. De Villiers made in respect of subversive work in this country,—and I venture to say that when the story of the precautions taken by him is written we shall always recognise our great indebtedness to him for what he did in those days. Though I have from time to time been perhaps a critic, and bn occasion I thought his actions were ill-advised, I wish to say I appreciate probably more than anybody in this House the magnificent work he did at that time. In my own constituency there were men masquerading as missionaries who were airmen and trained air gunners in disguise, and ready at any moment to take their part in a fifth column movement of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) when he paid a tribute to the C.P.S., and suggested to the Minister before this movement is disbanded the Minister should meet representatives from all parts of South Africa. I would appeal to the Minister to try to get representatives like the Chief Area Commandants to meet him in Pretoria during the recess to thank them in person. On that question I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that in Pretoria the City Council has decided to give no further financial assistance to the C.P.S. movement, but that the Chief Area Commandant is quite prepared to carry on until next October, when the Minister hopes he will have sufficient police to do the necessary work which this movement has been carrying on sb wonderfully during the war. I do feel that so far as the City Council is concerned if their threat is put into effect—and I understand it was by resolution of the Council—then the citizens of Pretoria will suffer and will not have the necessary police protection; this being inadequate even with the C.P.S. in Pretoria today. I trust the Minister will give the matter very serious consideration. I do not want to say very much about the communist bogey, but I feel that in so far as the Opposition is concerned, they have proved themselves to be the finest propagandists the communist movement could have in South Africa. During the war they tried to put over the Nazi system, but their South Africa friends found it was a damp squib. Today, thousands of Europeans are rather suspicious of the attitude of the Nationalist Party in condemning Communism, with the result they have induced those individuals to turn to literature and learn more about Communism and what the Russian or Soviet system stands for. I can assure hon. members on the other side of the House that if Communism as practised in Russia today is going to make headway in South Africa it will make headway amongst the Europeans and there will be no finer hunting ground than among their own poor supporters, who, they the Nationalists have been filling with hatred and suspicion. Certain statements have been made in this House about individuals trying to stir up trouble among the natives at Pietersburg, but I am surprised, if they are sincere, why they do not refer to the trouble we have had in regard to the Pretoria municipal compound riot. It was not the so-called communist who caused trouble there, but a young university student from Bloemfontein who acted as a “communist” among the natives, resulting in bloodshed. In attacking this system particularly from the standpoint of social equality it is up to hon. members opposite to suggest whether there is a solution; but to accuse the Minister of doing nothing when we know he has had his hands full, fighting the greatest menace this country has ever known, Nazism, which means sabotage and murder, is very unjust. What did the Opposition do? They sat dumb and hoped and prayed that everything that stood for sound and stable government would be wiped off the face of the earth in so far as South Africa was concerned.

The Minister of Justice today laid down a proposition which is disquieting to us and should be to everyone, the proposition that a person who has turned King’s evidence should always be protected, and others who were associated with him in the commission of the offence should also be protected. I do not want to speak about the person who was accused in the Mentz case, because the case is sub judice, but I can discuss the case of the person who was in the internment camp. Here a number of persons were charged. One of them, according to our information, turned King’s evidence, but they were all sent to the camp. A matter that causes us anxiety is whether the Minister is protecting a special Crown witness or whether he is protecting other people. Is he protecting an organisation? Will the Minister say that he is going to keep the Crown witness locked up for the rest of his life in order to protect him? He will have to protect him for the rest of his life because if the person runs a danger of being killed it may just as easily happen after five years on account of the evidence that he gave.

The man who is being protected has not been placed in the camp There are people in the camp against whom a case cannot be brought because in order to protect the man we cannot bring him into court. Let me put it this way. Mr. A gives evidence against B. The matter is investigated and it is perfectly clear that B is guilty, let us say of assault or with attempted assault, or with something else. A gives information and we promise A not to make his name known. We find that his information is correct. Then B is interned because it will be dangerous to allow B to run around. B is in the camp.

He has to come before the court. The Minister said a little while ago that the man he has to protect is the man who gave the necessary evidence. The Minister stated that certain documents were stolen by the organisation.

They tried to steal the documents.

That does not arise. For this reason the Minister wants to protect this particular person. Now we understand that it is not this man who is being protected but other people. Where does it lead to? I put a question to the Minister in connection with the theft at Port Elizabeth. There the unfortunate person, who was influenced, was sent to gaol, but the man who according to the evidence in the magistrate’s court was behind the whole affair, and at whose house the plot was hatched, was released after a certain period. Why did he not appear before the court? He was sent to the camp, but after a certain period he was released. We have every right to ask the Minister whether he is protecting other people. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) is not in the House at the moment. A little while ago he expressed himself as very concerned about a certain organisation. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) quoted a telegram that was sent by the Minister of Lands to the United Party candidate, asking support for the candidate of that organisation at the last General Election.

On behalf of the United Party.

On behalf of the United Party. Now I want to turn to the Minister’s reply in regard to communist propaganda. I do not want to go into that matter again. I wish now to focus the Minister’s attention on three special matters, and I should like to have a reply from him in that connection. The ‘Minister said that the incitement of the natives to which I referred last year, in the evidence of the Secretary for Native Affairs, was investigated, and it was found that they were so-called Nazi agents. I do not want to question the Minister’s words, but it is very peculiar that Senator Basner was involved in that, and he is of course not a Nazi agent. He is a communist.

I said amongst others.

He said further that the difficulty was settled. If the matter was Settled why then was it mentioned again this year in the report issued two or three months ago by the Secretary for Native Affairs? If it was settled last year why does he say—

If the matter was settled last year why do we get that complaint again this year? In the second place, I want to put another definite question to the Minister. Here are the photographs and the statements that appeared in the Transvaal in regard to the big communist demonstration of thousands of natives in Johannesburg. Here is the photograph of the communist demonstration with hammer-and-sickle flags. According to this report a pamphlet was distributed at that time with the words, and I am repeating what I said this morning—

I want to bring that report in the newspaper officially to the notice of the Minister, and I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to institute the necessary enquiry in regard to who is behind that. In the third place, I want again to direct the Minister’s attention to the report that I read here of a meeting of the United Party at Green Point and the statements made there by Mr. R. W. Bowen, M.P. I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to obtain information from Mr. Bowen and give the police instructions to find out exactly what took place at those meetings in the cafe at Green Point. The Minister says that we must produce evidence. Now I come with the evidence and he must not again return the reply—that he gave previously and get rid of it all just as a duck shakes himself free of water and say that the burden of proof rests on us and not on him. Let me tell the Minister that the burden of proof rests on him; he is responsible. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) this morning discussed here what is being said about the creation of resistance movements in South Africa. We of the Nationalist Party do not associate ourselves in the slightest with anything of the sort. We approach the Minister because he is a member of the Government and because the police are there to do these things. Our standpoint is that we do not associate ourselves with separate civilian resistance movements, but when we bring these points to the notice of the Minister he must not just shake himself free of them and say that we come with vague statements. The Communist propaganda is there, and what the propaganda has in mind is incitement. Has the law in regard to incitement become a dead letter in South Africa then, and is there no war regulation covering the question of the inflaming of feelings between the various races in South Africa? Does that regulation no longer exist? According to all the information we have, the information I placed before him yesterday and also today, it is clear that that incitement is occurring from the quarters of the Communist agitators amongst the coloureds and natives. Now I have mentioned these three instances and I expect the Minister to go into the matter, because I promise him that on a future occasion I will ask him for his answers.

I think it may be advisable for me to reply now to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). In regard to these cases I will just say this. It may be entirely correct that the Secretary for Native Affairs stated that they were agitators and were exploiting grievances. But I cannot act unless they go a step further and transgress the law. There may be agitators who are exploiting these grievances but I cannot intervene. They will first have to go a step further, namely to infringe the law, and only then can I take action. But I shall again discuss the point specially with the official concerned, and I promise the hon. member I shall go into it. I shall also again go into the statement made by the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) as well as the other matter that was mentioned, and the report in “Die Transvaler”.

It is dated Saturday, 12th May; please make a note of it.

The three points will be specially investigated, and not only will they be specially investigated but any other point that has been brought to my attention will also be investigated. I realise that a vigilant eye must be kept by the Department on any agitation.

May I just put the question to the Minister: In regard to the report in “Die Transvaler” is it not a fact that you stated that the head of the police declined to prosecute?

I gave that answer, but I want to explain that his declining to prosecute does not signify a suspension of the prosecution. If you believe the evidence is not adequate you cannot prosecute, but later if you consider the evidence is sufficient you can prosecute. In regard to the question of the internees I would only say this. I do not want to go too deeply into this matter, because it may place hon. members opposite in a difficult position.

Please do not worry about us.

Let me explain why I say that. I do not want to create the impression that I am the protector of the Opposition.

No, you are the protector of another organisation.

I do not want to mention names. Not only was a member of the Opposition attacked in a very cruel and dangerous manner, but another member of the Opposition was threatened and was in real danger. I do not want to put the matter too strongly, and it is not a matter out of which I want to make political capital or propaganda.

Who is threatening us in this way?

That is what I am attempting to find out.

You know very well.

Have they not yet told you who it is?

Is it the same people who attacked the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz)?

Many members of the Party told me this, and even a member of Parliament told me of a threat uttered in his presence against another member of Parliament, and I must accept that; indeed, I accept that without any hesitation.

What do the police say? Who are the people who are threatening in this way?

I want to give hon. members the assurance that in such cases they can look to the Government to maintain law and order. This is not a favour the Government is doing, but the matter is really dangerous as the recent attack on the control officer’s office proved. We know who the people were.

Are they the people who assisted at the Beaufort West election?

I can make no statement that is not based on facts. At the moment we are on the track of certain information and we shall follow that track.

Have judges not stated already that certain movements are behind these assaults?

I am speaking of the assaults ….

They are all part of the same thing. Judge Schreiner said so.

We are leaving no stone unturned to find out who it is. We are doing everything in our power to discover who is responsible for the assaults on political opponents, and especially on members of Parliament.

What movement is it?

I dare not say that, because if I made such a statement it must be based of facts. I do not want to make cheap observations, because the matter is a serious one, but I want to give the House the assurance that we are doing everything in our power to apprehend these people.

But if the judge says what movement is behind the thing ….

I am speaking of another matter.

Is there more than one movement?

I am speaking about the assaults and the hon. member is speaking about the sabotage. I hope we have suppressed the sabotage activities for good, but hon. members may be convinced we are on the track of the people and we shall not hesitate to bring them before the court äs soon as there is sufficient evidence.

The speech which the hon. Minister has just made, casts a very serious reflection on the police and especially the C.I.D. But that is not a reflection I share with him. All sorts of things are being said in South Africa. Things are being told to members of Parliament by people who ought to know what they are talking about. We are often told things either by officials or by friends of ours in the police or the C.I.D. These people are in close contact with such things and they ought to know what they are talking about. You have, amongst others, two types of crime. You have the individual crime and you have organised crime. Usually it is not very difficult to suppress individual crime. You catch the criminal and that disposes of the matter. But if you want to put a stop to organised crime it is no use merely catching the people who committed the crime. You catch them, and within a little while the crime reappears elsewhere. The only way of putting a stop to organised crime is to find out who organises it. And when you have the people who organise it you can put a stop to it. If you do not do that, it will simply reappear elsewhere. Now a question which occurs to me; it is a question which occurs to me especially in consequence of things people are being told by members of the police and the C.I.D., is whether there is really an attempt on the part of the Minister to put a stop to organised crime of that description.

That is a very serious charge.

I know it is a very serious charge and it is about time we say so. All the while we are barking up the wrong tree. Let us trace the history of these matters, The hon. Minister has referred to sabotage. When those wire-cutting cases were on in the Free State, one witness after another stood up in court and testified to who had ordered him to cut the wires. Did the Minister ever take any steps against the people who ordered those persons to cut the wires? No, he did nothing. They went scot-free. Those innocent youngsters—I am using the word “innocent” in the sense that they were incited, by elder persons who should have had more sense—had to suffer, but the men who organised the crime were allowed to go scot-free. No steps were taken against them; It is no use the Minister shaking his head. When he shakes his head it merely proves that he did not read the evidence. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has referred to the case at Port Elizabeth. Whoever reads the evidence in that case must get the impression that questions designed to find out who were behind the whole thing were suppressed, that no attempt was made to examine those people as to who encouraged them. I consider that in a case like that it is an extenuating circumstance that a young person has been induced to commit such a crime. Such circumstances are taken into consideration by the court. Witnesses said in court: “Yes I was told to do so.” The plea of extenuating circumstances was made in court and the judge accepted it as an extenuating circumstance that these youngsters were incited by elder persons to commit the crime. I want to ask the Minister whether he ever brought before the court any of the persons who were behind these crimes.

Whom should we have arrested?

The Minister should not ask me; he should ask his Police. I now want to tell the Minister what we are being told by men of the C.I.D. and police officers. We are being told that the crimes which have now been committed, such as the assault on the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and these wholesale thefts of money and other crimes, can be put a stop to within three months if the Police were only to be given a free hand. They were not irresponsible persons who told me these things; they are responsible persons. These are not people who came to me to tell me about these things, they are personal friends of mine, people I have known for years as intimate friends. They tell me about thèse things in private conversations. They say they can wipe out organised crime in this country within three months if they are allowed a free hand. I want to tell you what one detective told me. He told me that in Johannesburg he was not allowed to go further with these cases beyond arresting the persons who had actually committed the crime. When he tried to find out who were behind these people his senior officers told him they had received instructions not to do so. Our police in South Africa are very good and we have an excellent C.I.D. But there is an impression throughout the Police Force and the C.I.D. that they are being obstructed in the execution of their duty by high officials and by heads of the Department. We had a good deal of organised crime in South Africa at one time. There is not one solitary gang or organisation which carried on crime in South Africa on an organised basis before the war which has not been wiped out. But now suddenly we have these things happening; now that there are spies of the Government in every movement in South Africa; now that they have more information than ever before, now all of a sudden they cannot put a stop to organised crime in South Africa; and the reason why they cannot put a stop to it is because they do not want to do so; because they do not want to hurt their potential friends in the future, because they do not want to take steps against their potential friends, and for that reason those persons are being shielded. Those who are behind the whole thing are being shielded. The poor beggar who commits the crime, who is very often persuaded to do so by elder persons, he is the one to be punished, but the actual culprits are being shielded and the work of your C.I.D. is being obstructed. They are eager to do so and they can do so; they have done so in the past and they can again do it if they are allowed a free hand, but that is denied them.

I just want to continue where I left off when I was interrupted by the time limit. I made a statement that one of the differences between the Labour Party and the Communist Party in South Africa, was that the Communist Party believed in complete equality, political, social and economic between black and white. I do not want to be misquoted so I can hardly afford to leave it there. I do not want to elaborate on it because it is not quite germane to the vote of the Minister of Justice, but despite the fact that we do not agree with the Communist Party, we do agree that the greatest possible amount of social and economic development should be given to the nonEuropeans. We believe that it is our bounden duty to give those people a decent standard of living and that brings me to the speech of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) who complained that the Communist Party was a revolutionary party. He does not want any revolutionary activity in the Union of South Africa. I am sorry he is not here, because we on the left side know that the only time you can have a revolution is when revolutionary circumstances exist, and they do exist in the Union of Sou h Africa today, and the Nationalist Party has been bent ’upon continuing the existence of revolutionary circumstances; in other words, they are bent on continuing to keep the non-Europeans living like slaves in filthy hovels, without adequate wages and without a sufficient amount of food, and on every occasion when members in this House, particularly when the native representatives in this House, plead for some amelioration of the lot of the native population in this country, the Opposition comes from the Nationalist Party and if there is any single section of the community on which I can place the blame for the growth of Communism in South Africa—and it is growing—it would be the Nationalist Party itself. The Nationalist Party must bear a very large part of the blame for the continuance of the completely deplorable conditions under which the majority of our non-Europeans are forced to live in this country; and if, as the hon. member for Cradock says, 60 per cent. of the coloured population of the Cape are communists, can one wonder at it? I do not. If I were one of the 60 per cent. I would be a communist myself, if I was forced to live under the conditions under which these people are forced to live, conditions which are continually justified by members on the Nationalist benches. I am quite certain that under those circumstances I would be a communist and a very revolutionary communist at that, and so the responsibility for the growth of Communism in South Africa rests,. I believe, with the Nationalist Party and these other illiberal elements in South Africa, some of whom sit on the United Party benches incidentally, who are not prepared to take drastic steps to improve the conditions of our non-European people. Now I want to go on to another point. As I gathered, one of the objections to Communism voiced particularly by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is the lawlessness which is likely to accrue from the dissemination of the communist doctrine. I understand a certain member was even accused of having fomented rebellion in a certain part of the country. Let me examine again the credentials of the Nationalist Party in so far as political lawlessness is concerned. Let me tell them one or two adventures of my own in the last Parliamentary election. The night before the election I happened to be speaking at Primrose in company with my colleague, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). When we arrived at the meeting we had a hall packed to the door. We had several motor cars outside with gramophones and loudspeakers playing Afrikaans tunes, with a very truculent audience, and when we went inside the hall we were requested to meet Mr. Boshoff, who was then the Nationalist Party candidate, and Mr. Boshoff in a democratic country had the audacity to suggest to me that if I and the hon. member for Germiston agreed to his proposition, he would allow us to hold the meeting. If we did not agree, he would not allow us to hold the meeting. That was the Nationalist Party candidate. My hon. friends are against political lawlessness, and here we have a Nationalist Party candidate standing in the name of the Nationalist Party and he has the audacity in a democratic country to tell the opposing candidate that if we agreed to his demands, he would allow us to hold the meeting. If we did not agree to his demands, he would not. I more or less told him to “voetsek”, and we did hold the meeting, but the demands of Mr. Boshoff were that the Minister of Justice, who was coming later to address that meeting should answer every question that was put to him. I told Mr. Boshoff that in all the years I have known the Minister of Justice, I have never known him to be frightened to answer any questions, but that this happened to be a Labour Party meeting and I said that I could assure him that all questions would be answered. I did not give him that assurance from the point of view whether they allowed us to hold the meeting or not, because I was not prepared to be intimidated. But only an hour previous to that the hon. Minister of Justice had been refused permission to hold a meeting himself in Johannesburg. And why? Because of the presence of what was then known as the “Westdene irregulars”. Let me tell you this that a few evenings previously I was myself addressing a meeting in Braamfontein, and fortunately the meeting had almost finished when the “Westdene irregulars” arrived. T got in my car and I can assure you that my car was lifted, the four wheels off the ground, and I was tossed about by those gallant supporters of the Nationalist Party like a bit of dice in a box. That was done by the “Westdene irregulars”. They come from Westdene. I will challenge the hon. member to tell me that the lady, Mrs. Cohn, who fought him in Westdene, ’ was ever allowed to hold a meeting. She was not allowed to talk at any meeting and got a black eye from one of these hooligans.

It sounds like Durban.

I do not support the kind of treatment that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) received. I believe in Democracy and fair play, and free speech, and the second reason is that I believe the more the hon. member for Beaufort West talks the better it is for the other side. It is time to stop this lawlessness entering our political life. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) will say that he had nothing to do with the formation of the “Westdene irregulars”, but they are not a phantasy of my imgination, nor the production of the “Rand Daily Mail” and the “Sunday Times”. They were a real force in the election at Johannesburg. I cannot remember any member of the Nationalist Party ever having repudiated this kind of election meeting and that kind of action. It is the same with sabotage during the war. In no single instance can I remember any responsible Nationalist Party leader dissociating himself from lawlessness. But now we find them standing here and the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) waved himself like a jellyfish in a paroxysm of anger. [Time limit.]

In his reply this afternoon the Minister of Justice again said that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) had managed to get more people released from internment camps than anyone else. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is on account of the fact that the hon. member is a personal friend of his and whether these persons are being released from the camps as a favour. Many representations have been made, especially from this side of the House, in regard to internees, and we now want the Minister to stand up and say how it has happened that the hon. member for Hospital has managed to have more persons released than anybody else. I thought it was at least the duty of the. Minister to go into the merits of the case and not simply to do certain things because a member happens to be a personal friend of his. We wholeheartedly wish them joy on their release, but we are bearing in mind those other men who remain behind and who do not receive the same favours. I also wish to associate myself with the suggestion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) in regard to the liquor licences and his objection against the manner in which liquor licences are now being granted. We know the abuse that is made of returned soldiers to secure licences for other persons. The time has come for the Minister to consider whether we should not, in granting a licence, require that such a licence shall not be ceded to any other person except a direct heir. The liquor trade is developing into a concession which is acquired as a favour, and whoever gets it makes piles of money. Then there is another matter I should like to touch on. While we had a scarcity of beer I noticed that hotel proprietors who also have bottle stores refused to sell beer to the public in the bottle store because there was a scarcity of beer, but if you went to the bar in the same building—where many people do not like to be seen—you could get as much beer as you liked, but it cost you about 8d. per bottle more. Even prohibitionists have nothing against beer; a man has the right to buy a bottle of beer. If he cannot get that he might perhaps buy other drink which harms him. Then I come to the thefts which are being committed in Johannesburg. It is about time we have plain clothes police. Between the Victoria Hotel and the station, Johannesburg, I found on three occasions that things had been stolen from my car. The car was locked and it must have been an organised gang who stole the things. The only thing to do is to appoint plain clothes police. We shall then soon find out who belong to these gangs. It would be a great asset for us to give our people a greater measure of security.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to ask his friend, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to refrain from making his contemptible and insulting insinuations, and then it would not be necessary for him to stand up here and to shield him. It is not a pleasant matter to be personal but when we are being charged with being traitors and funks we will most certainly hit back. I hope it will not happen again. It seems to me the Minister is very indifferent as regards Communism. I wish to direct his attention to one outstanding instance. The Imperial Government, which controls Basutoland, regards Communism as such a real danger that they have forbidden the Communist organ in the native language. I want to ask the Minister to think very seriously about the matter. The Imperial Government regards Communism as such a real danger that they have forbidden that paper. Why then should the Minister be indifferent to this dangerous agitation? But the Minister has asked us to mention specific cases of contraventions. He said that he would not prosecute if we did not mention cases of contraventions but that he would prosecute in cases where we do so. I want to point out that steps were taken to suppress an outburst of feeling among the Europeans. Books like “Die Eeu van Onreg” and another one, “Hoe Hulle Gesterf Het”, have been banned. Why? Because it was feared that when such books are read the Europeans would be incited or that some of the people would appreciate such books. Now what Communistic pamphlet or book has the Minister banned? If none of their books has been banned we feel uneasy; then we feel that that movement is being allowed free play so that they can do as they please. I want to make a very serious appeal to the Minister; I want to ask him to take a serious view of this matter. We are only 2,000,000 Europeans against 8,000,000 natives. We do not so much regard the native as a danger; what we do regard as a danger is the unscrupulous organisations which agitate those people and which may place the Europeans in this country in a fatal position. It has been said here that the Nationalist Party is the cause of these things and that we have no feeling for those natives who live in dire poverty, who are famine-stricken and who go about almost naked. But I do wish to say that if the policy of this side of the House were to be carried out, those natives would not be in such a bad plight. Then there is another question I should like to ask the Minister. When he spoke about Weichardt he said the case was sub judice. I should like to know how long that case has been sub judice. I should like to know when Weichardt lodged an appeal and also, how many of those appeals in the past have succeeded.

Not a single one.

We cannot but put in a plea. Let justice be done to these people. Let the Minister pursue the same policy in regard to those people as that which he pursued in the case of the rebels. We were brought before the court and punished. Subsequently amnesty was granted and there was peace and quiet. Let those people appear before court; punish them and let there be an end to the matter, and then you will have rest and peace and quiet in the country.

I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that there has been a tremendous increase in cruelty to animals in South Africa, and I have been asked to draw attention to a case heard in Springs recently. There are a number of other cases I would like to deal with, but I think that if I quote this case it will be sufficient for the Minister to indicate whether it is possible for him to take any action to relieve the position. I know it is very difficult for the Minister to instruct judges and magistrates as to their duties, but I am afraid that our magistrates do not realise the power they have under the Act, and I think the Minister has only to draw their attention to the fact that they can inflict corporal punishment in cases of cruelty to animals and it will go a long way to stopping it. I want to read the report about this case in Springs, where a Portuguese farmer was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for cruelty to an ox about the 17th February last. The magistrate in that case said that never in his experience had he heard of such a revolting case. The report is to the effect that—

It was suggested that this Portuguese should be deported. This case caused quite a stir throughout the country and I want to appeal to the Minister, as his period of imprisonment is expiring, whether it is not possible to have him deported for this crime as an example to others, to other aliens who come here. I think it is time that we take up this attitude. I am afraid we will get a bad name for cruelty to animals. I hope the Minister will be able to do something and instruct magistrates about the powers they have. They can even flog in certain cases. It is very difficult to get convictions in many cases, because the people accused say that the cruelty was not intended. Another thing I wish to suggest to the Minister is that our gaols are so full that we have several times a year to open the doors to make room for others. Perhaps the time has arrived that the police should be encouraged in some way, by remuneration or promotion, instead of arresting so many people for minor offences, they should do whatever they can to avoid bringing people before the magistrate. Too many minor offences come before the magistrate. Perhaps a man has had a little too much to drink. If he goes home quietly he ought not to be molested but it is the duty of the police to arrest him. Why not encourage the police to see him home? The pick-up van can be used to do a lot of good where a man has been imbibing too much and is not making a nuisance of himself. [Time limit.]

I would like to put one or two questions to the Minister, but before I do that I want to say that I regret that the country has actual reason to entertain complaints against the Minister. It is not street talk when we say that serious dissatisfaction prevails in the country in connection with the Minister and the conduct of his Department. I can think of few countries in the world in which things occur without being traced and prosecutions instituted, such as have happened lately in our country under the jurisdiction of the present Minister of Justice. I want to say to him in a most friendly manner—and I regret that it is necessary for me to say it to him—that the people outside no longer have any confidence in him and his Department. He is responsible for that and one wants to ask him to remove the impression created by him in the country. The people are under the impression—they talk to all of us—that things have happened in the country during the past years which expose the Minister to serious criticism. In a country such as ours with a small European population one cannot leave a murder for two or three years without any prosecution being instituted or without any reasonable explanation being afforded the public, and then to say that one must be exonerated. The complaints made against the Minister may not all be true, but they are complaints made by the public against the Minister, and they relate to murder cases which have not been disposed of, in respect of which he has given a better explanation.

Which cases?

There are two especially in respect of which there has been no prosecution. The case of Nel has already been referred to here. That surely is one of the cruellest murders which we have had for many years in the country. The Minister is aware of the circumstances. He also knows for how long the person was alive before he died. It is the cruellest murder South Africa has had for many years. I say that the case of Nel and the other one which also has as yet not been disposed of, have remained open for so long that the Minister owes the country an explanation. Unless he wants to lay himself open to serious criticism he must give that explanation. He has stated here that he nas certain evidence and that he is awaiting other evidence. I only want to say to the Minister that the time may arrive that the public can say to the Minister: Now you have waited too long. That is especially the case when a murder is of so serious a nature, as these two cases which I have in mind and which have occurred under conditions which made people think that the criminals could have been traced. Those are very serious cases. I cannot find words strong enough for expressing my disapproval of the fact that these two cases have been dealt with in this manner. There have been very few cases of murder in our country which have remained open for three years. The other serious complaint from outside against the Minister concerns the creation of conditions in South Africa during the past few years where people have been ill-treated and of which they were not allowed to speak. I need only mention six cases to the Minister. Those are cases in respect of which the public know that the people have been abducted. I leave the case of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). He has spoken and all honour is due to him for having had the courage to go to the police. I may only mention six cases. Others may mention more. One case is that of a well-known English professor—those are cases of people who have been so ill-treated that they barely escaped with their lives. They were mostly taken and beaten up in the veld. It is beyond one’s powers of imagination that such conditions may be possible in our country, that people can be thus ill-treated and then told that if they talk it would be just as much as their lives were worth. That is why they did not talk. There are people today in South Africa who have been subjected to this ill-treatment in respect of which nothing has been done. When I think for example how the elderly English professor was beaten up in the Transvaal, an elderly man, then I feel that the position is alarming. And when you then find that where people have been so ill-treated, where there is such terrorisation in South Africa, that most of them dare not complain to the police, then I ask where are we going. A few did complain. We know the names of those who did complain to the police and where prosecutions have been instituted, but I say to the Minister tonight: Do not lay yourself open to criticism in allowing terrorisation in South Africa for a period of a few years where people are assaulted in a ghastly manner like this and no prosecution is instituted because they dare not complain to the police. What conditions !

Why did he not complain?

I am not referring to “he”; I am referring to at least six cases. Is the hon. member not aware of the terrorisation during the past few years? It really surprises me. I now further want to say to the hon. Minister that the Nationalist Party during the past few years passed through difficult conditions. Nationalists mostly had to pay the score. The organisations of the United Party and the Nationalist Party are jealous of a certain other organisation. For one reason. If our two large organisations of the United Party and the Nationalist Party were only able to secure as much petrol as those other people, we would tonight be most grateful to the Government. I state that here with full responsibility. We often discuss it. The organisations of the United Party and the Nationalist Party would have been very grateful if, during the past few years, we had had the petrol at our disposal which a certain other organisation has enjoyed to criss-cross the country. I must tell the Minister another worse thing the people outside are saying. They say of him that he is the cause of the people not being able to complain to the police. Why? Because the organisation which encourages the youth to terrorisation, so it is said, feels that it is free because the Minister does not prosecute the people.

Who are they?

Let me rather refer to the persons who were assaulted.

I am quite prepared to do it.

If I refer to the assailants I would lay myself open to the same accusation as other members who have been accused unreasonably that they act as informers to the Minister. I am not a spy and I also do not know who they are. I am also not a detective. But the Minister has his detective service. Why, if we on this side know about certain matters, does the Minister with his whole detective service not know about it? He has a military detective service and a civil detective service. [Time limit.]

I want to deal with this matter at once and again I want to say that I accept that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) is very serious about the matter and he is justified in directing attention to it. But he must pardon me if in the first place I say that it is not fair to cast a reflection upon the police who have done an excellent job in this country. I personally do not investigate these matters; the police do that. Excellent work was done in the Nel case. But I do not want to mention names; no more than you do. However, I do want to say that the C.I.D. have informed me that they are convinced that there are people who can give us the necessary information for identification, because it is essential for that, and they do not give it to us. The police are not to blame. We have to go to court. Murder is a serious matter. You have to have a substantial case before you bring a man before the court on a charge of murder. I have already said we know who these people are. Furthermore, the police are convinced that there are certain people who can give us the information, but they do not do so. I could also tell the hon. member in secret who those persons are. I appreciate his difficulty, the same as that of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I can mention names but I do not want to do so.

Exactly, neither do I.

I want to treat the matter in a reasonable manner: to use an old expression “I am not out to score points”. The matter is altogether too serious for that. That is the difficulty which confronts us. Supposing these two murders were to be solved. Would you still say that the police did not do their duty in the other cases? That would probably still be said. In the ordinary course a suspect can be charged straightaway and the persons who have suffered personally assist in all possible ways in collecting evidence. Because we now have two cases that have not been solved, it cannot be said that the police have not done their duty. Let me say this: We can be proud of our police in South Africa. During the past four years a greater percentage of serious cases have been solved than in almost any other country. We compare excellently with any other country. Our police have done excellent work. They did an excellent job in the Nel case but if people who have suffered and people who can impart information do not do so, you cannot get a conviction so easily. If that had to happen in connection with other murder cases it would be just as difficult. So much for these two cases. The same principle applies in the other murder case. There the police are convinced that they know who the men are but the people who can identify the culprits do not want to testify in court. Now we hear of a reign of terror in this country. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has rightly congratulated the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) on having lodged a complaint, but when he came to lodge his complaint the police already knew who it was. Even before he lodged a complaint his wife phoned the police, and they were immediately on the track. We acted immediately.

Who are “we”?

The police.

The police are right but you are wrong.

The police obtained the names and they immediately made arrests. The case is sub judice as far as this man is concerned and I cannot dwell on this. But in other cases of assault the people do not want to give us any assistance. They say they are afraid. We tell them they will have our protection. They do not want to do so.

What a state of affairs !

It is a ridiculous state of affairs because we can protect them. Where did we not protect these people? But now the hon. member says it is a ridiculous state of affairs. But here they decline to give us the information. Now they say it is on account of the state of affairs in the country. When we say that we know of certain conditions which we want to suppress and deal with, we are criticised. Then we are asked why we intern people, why we do not bring them to court so that we can all know who gave the information? It is for the very reason of protecting people who have information, for the very reason that we know we have to deal with the matter. The hon. member cannot play loose and fast. He cannot say on the one hand that we should protect no one who might give information and on the other hand shout: “What a state of affairs”. Hon. members speak of a reign of terror. There was another reign of terror with sabotage. There people gave us information and every case of sabotage was solved.

Information was given in connection with the case of the hon. member for Westdene.

It was a brilliant piece of work on the part of the police. Now it is being said that we are obstructing the police in their investigation. That is definitely untrue and wrong. I do not want to mention names in the House and I do not want to challenge hon. members to mention names, because I understand hon. members may not be prepared to do so. But let them give them to me in private.

No, but we cannot allow ourselves to be used for your detective work.

Well, if hon. members are not prepared to co-operate; if hon. members tell me that there are officers in the police force who say that they are not allowed a free hand to investigate, it is a serious matter and then we should have the information; then the Commissioner of Police should have that information because he, as well as the rest of us, wants these matters to be thoroughly investigated.

We do not know who assaulted these persons.

Take the case of the hon. member for Westdene. Why were those people brought before the court?

Only one was brought before the court.

I say that if the police were to receive even the slightest assistance from the quarters from which they should receive it, the other cases would also be solved. I know of cases where people have been assaulted where they decline to give even the slightest information. If a man has been assaulted he does not want to give this information. In the case of the hon. member for Westdene we obtained the information and his wife also phoned us. But if we do not get the information, how do hon. members expect us to solve these cases. Let us be reasonable. I do not mind hon. members attacking me. Attack me as much as you like but be reasonable as regards the police who have done excellent work. I say it is the duty of anyone who has been assaulted to assist the police as far as possible. I know of cases where the police have gone to people and they refused to say anything They had been assaulted but they refuse to say anything. They refuse to describe then assailants. In some cases we would probably have made arrests if we had received the least assistance. How are the police to solve a matter when the persons who suffered refuse to give any assistance? How are you going to set about that? I do not want to go too far. I know perfectly well that the last time an hon. member said he would give his assistance a good deal of propaganda was made against him. I can therefore understand the difficulty and I do not want to take advantage. It is really my object to find a solution of these cases. Why should we not bring the people who murdered Nel to justice if we did that in all the other sabotage cases? Then there is one other point. It was stated that there is an organised society which is committing crimes and that it no use arresting the individual unless you can also arrest the others. There again the name of the organisation is not mentioned. I have a good notion to whom they are referring. I do not want to mention the name either because I do not want to take advantage. All I want to say is that if hon. members have any information I am asking them to divulge it, not as a favour, but because it is their duty to the State to divulge it to the police so that the matter can be investigated.

May I just ask something. The public prosecutor in the Free State prosecuted in several cases where wires had been cut and then he said: “You belong to an organisation and you act on instruction.” In not one single case did he ask to what organisation the person belonged. Why is that not investigated?

We know it is being said that it is the O.B. Organisation. The hon. member knows that as well as I do. But if there are people who gave such orders, where the name of the person had been mentioned, the man was arrested and sentenced, and sentenced heavily.

In what case, for instance?

In the case of Van der Merwe; but Van der Merwe declines to say who in turn gave them their instructions.

Why was Benade’s statement not taken?

Perhaps we did not quite uderstand each other. I adopt this attitude: We do not know who committed the assaults. Therefore on that point we cannot assist the Minister to trace criminals. The people who were assaulted and refuse to speak we also cannot discuss with the Minister. We would like to assist the Minister in taking steps against assailants but the Minister does not know how to let his own Department act. The impression that prevails outside is that certain subordinate persons are brought before the court and others are protected and I cannot help the Minister jibbing but that is the complaint made not only in the House but is one which one also finds outside.

The person summoned before the court is the one we have arrested and who has committed the offence.

But the Crown prosecutors do not ask who is behind it. Comments in the country are: Why do the Crown prosecutors only question up to a certain point? He only puts questions up to a certain point and does not go further. One thinks that if he only would put a few further questions in court he would obtain the information, but he does not put further questions. I would like to emphasise that as far as this matter is concerned we have no further information. Let that be clear. I would like to put two questions. The first question is that in the case of Mr. Mentz the police who were engaged on the case were relieved at a certain stage and other police were called in. I would like the Minister to avail himself of the opportunity to explain the matter. The detectives were called off and other detectives were called in at a certain stage. Another question in respect of which the Minister owes the country an explanation is why a certain person was first summoned to give evidence —I think I will mention the name, Benade— why was he first summoned to give evidence and then instructed by the military police not to give evidence in the Mentz case? We can talk of hearsay but the hearsay is that the statement of Benade was of such a nature that it should have been laid before the court. He had been summoned. Why was he instructed by the military police not to give evidence? That is my second question which I would like to put.

A little while ago the Minister called upon this side of the House to be reasonable. I am standing up to tell the Minister that I admired his chivalrous and reasonable and just attitude this afternoon. I am really getting up merely to ask the Minister a question. The Minister was to have addressed a meeting in my constituency. Will the Minister deny —it was an open-air meeting—that I was lifted into the air several times that night and that I repeatedly asked the electors to give the Minister a proper hearing and that I did not succeed? Does the Minister remember that? He must remember, because I remember three occasions on which I appealed to the public. While the Minister allows the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) to attack me here in a most unsavoury manner and to allege that I was the cause of the incident, I ask the Minister whether he thinks that it is reasonable and just and chivalrous not to stand up and deny it? I repeatedly appealed to the people to give the Minister an opportunity of having a good meeting and I said I would then cross-examine him. The Minister could have been so chivalrous as to say so.

As far as that is concerned, I accept what the hon. member has said. It was a wild meeting and a number of people were injured. I did not know the hon. member as well at that time as I know him now, but I accept the hon. member’s statement as to the facts. It was a question of the election of a chairman and the meeting was rather wild. But I do not wish to go into that any further. With regard to the proceedings in connection with the assault on the hon. member, that is still sub judice. I cannot dwell on that.

Only the Vorster case is still sub judice.

It is clear that Benade has been subpoenaed in connection with the case and anything I say may be prejudicial.

Will he be able to give evidence later?

It is in the public interest that I do not say any more than I have said with regard to Benade. His name was mentioned here. I would not have done so, but it is in the public interest that I do not say anything further about it. With regard to the police, they have many cases requiring investigation and it happens continually that a detective working along a certain line is put on to another case, while other detectives proceed with the investigation along another line. As far as I myself am concerned I do not know anything about the change, but if it did happen, there would have been good reason for it. Detectives were not, however, withdrawn in order to hamper the investigation. It quite often happens that a detective is following a certain clue when another case crops up which he has to investigate. But in this case a thorough investigation was made. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) our difficulty is, as I have already said, that a person who had suffered, could not even make a complaint. Even when the police go to him he refuses to say anything. There was a certain man who belonged to our Party, who was assaulted and we tried everything possible but we could not get him to assist us in obtaining information. It also happened in other cases. The hon. member will realise to what extent the work of the police is hampered in a case where persons who had suffered, are not willing to give any assistance.

The defence offered by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) is a simple question; he asks the Minister why he allowed me to make this charge, that the Minister was prevented often in the presence of fifty of his best policemen from speaking at a meeting in Johannesburg. I want to ask the hon. member why he did not see to it that Mrs. Cohn was allowed to address at least one meeting during the elections.

On a point of order, I put that question to the Minister just now because he sat here when the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) attacked me. My question was whether the Minister remembered how I appealed three times to the people to be quiet and to give the Minister an orderly hearing, and the Minister stated that he accepted that.

It does not cut any ice. Whether he likes it or not the hon. member is the representative of that constituency which, it was incontrovertibly proved, produced during the last election a crowd of hooligans we knew in Johannesburg as “The Westdene Irregulars”. They travelled round in motor cars, they visited various meetings along the Reef and they prevented any Government candidate, whether Labour Party or United Party from addressing these meetings. They travelled around in ten or twelve motor cars. They lifted me out of my motor car and tossed me about.

On a point of order, this accusation I can certainly deny. I deny what the hon. member states. I know nothing of cars that went to other meetings outside the constituency.

That is not a point of order but of explanation.

What the hon. member says may be true, but I still have to find any record where he addressed a meeting and made any protest against this kind of thing. By his passive attitude and by the passive attitude of the Nationalist Party they, in effect, condoned the hooliganism which was a feature of the last elections in Johannesburg. They have condoned sabotage, which has been a feature of South Africa right through the war. I read the other day that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, in addressing a meeting of Christian students, actually used the word “chivalry” in connection with Germany. The chivalry of war. He said they used to sheath the sword and hand it back to the vanquished. What chivalry did the hon. member have when he was fighting a lady candidate in his own constituency and when he never entered one word of protest against the way she was treated by the hooligans of his constituency?

I did.

I never saw or heard one word of it. If the hon. member can produce a shred of positive proof to this House that he offered a word of protest— never mind what occurred when the Minister addressed the meeting or when I was tossed about—I shall apologise to him publicly in this House. But he has never uttered a word of protest. [Interruptions.] For him to say that when the Minister of Justice attempted to speak in Johannesburg he could not get near him … [Interruptions.] They cut the wires of the microphone before the Minister was there. It is, in fact, very fortunate the Minister was not seriously injured. My hon. friend’s opponent, Mrs. Cohn, got a black eye.

I could not help that.

You could have protested. You could have said, this is not the kind of thing we go in for. My Nationalist opponent in Fordsburg attempted to prevent this sort of conduct. Unfortunately Mr. Bertie van Hees on his way to prevent this descent of the Westdene Irregulars, met with an accident which necessitated him being taken to hospital for a couple of hours. There was at any rate one gentleman amongst the Nationalist Party candidates. I have the evidence that he set out to prevent this hooliganism at a meeting I was myself addressing at Braamfontein. The hon. member for Westdene is still the organising secretary of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, and he has considerable weight amongst the members of his Party. He was actually in charge of the organisation. He, as organising secretary knew what was going on behind the scenes. He pleads ignorance of the Westdene Irregulars. I am bound to accept his word, but I would not have accepted his word the night I was tossed about when I was taken out of my motor car. I would not have accepted his word the night that Mrs. Cohn got a black eye, and when the Minister of Justice was chased away. But what is his defence? The defence of the hon. member for Westdene now is that he wants the Minister to defend him. These people who allowed lawlessness for the last five years now appeal to the Minister. He had to appeal to the Minister, this terrible Minister, at the finish; we know he had to do that. You will be the victims of this policy of lawlessness. The Bible says that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword, and those who use lawlessness will perish by it. That is what is happening. You are being hoist with your own petard. The Nationalist Party, if they really want to eliminate lawlessness has the solution in their own hands. Let them purge their own Party and say they will not be responsible for lawlessness in politics, and if they do so we will in future have peaceful political meetings and the Nationalist Party will be quietly eliminated.

What the House has to do with the matters discussed by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat I am at a loss to know. But I am interested in those matters. I have just returned from a political tour where the Party represented by this side of the House conducted itself in an exemplary manner, but curiously enough the persons who caused disturbances at meetings were members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the same Party as the members opposite. Has any member opposite risen to say a word about that?

What has South-West to do with this vote?

The hon. member is now ashamed of himself and seeks that way out. I still recall the times when we were unable to hold a meeting in Johannesburg without being beaten unconscious. I remember that Dr. Malan addressed a meeting in the City Hall in Johannesburg in 1918 and when we arrived outside after the meeting there were 10,000 people waiting for us. Why do they not refer to that?

What happened in 1066?

I am also in a position to refer to events of two years ago. I am in a position also to remind members opposite that my own brother had to save Gen. Smuts at a meeting at which the Labour Party almost killed him and my brother. Now members opposite keep on discussing that matter two years after the election. What has that to do with this vote? The matter I want to discuss here and in respect of which I desire the attention of the Minister of Justice concerns internees.

Again.

The internment I want to discuss is not that applied in the Union but in South-West. In his reply the Minister has stated that Germany still detained French nationals two or three years after the surrender. That is so and I do not want to discuss that. I am not referring to Reich Germans, not to those people sent out by the Nazi Government to conduct propaganda in South-West Africa and not to Nazi agents. I am referring to Germans who were in the country when we conquered it in 1914 and to Germans born there and who have never been outside South-West Africa.

But they are nevertheless Nazis.

No.

We know that they are.

That hon. member is just like a parrot; he chatters. I am referring to people who were automatically naturalised by this House in 1924 and were again automatically denaturalised by this House in 1942. Those people were brought under the impression that they were Union nationals. If they had not been automatically naturalised under that Act they would have applied for naturalisation in the ordinary way.

They were naturalised at their own request.

No, Gen. Smuts beseeched them to do it.

The case of those people differs from that of Reich Germans and those sent there by the Nazi Party to conduct propaganda. These people have never committed any sabotage or conducted propaganda against the Government. They were interned simply because they were declared by our legislation in 1942 to be enemy subjects. If they had had the opportunity of applying for naturalisation in the ordinary way they would have applied. I am not referring here to anybody who is a danger to the State. I hold no brief for such people but I plead for the old pioneers who were in the country. I plead for their children born here and I ask the Minister to reconsider their cases. If they had not been brought under the impression by legislation passed by this House that they were Union nationals and that they would be treated as such they would have applied for naturalisation in due course and they would not have been interned. There are people who did not have themselves naturalised under the Act of 1924 but who applied subsequently and they today enjoy liberty because they are considered Union nationals. But the people who were satisfied with the Union legislation, who complied with it and who served the State loyally, who were good, loyal and peace-loving subjects of the country, because they were de-naturalised under the Act of 1942, were considered enemy subjects and were interned. The view held by the Union Government at that time was to allow the Nazi Party to carry its propaganda to a high point. We know that that was the case and they also intimidated people there. There are people who were compelled by such intimidation to become members of the party but they never had Nazi inclinations and they have never committed one single act of sabotage. It is extraordinary that in the whole of South-West, during the whole period of the past war, not one single act of sabotage was committed. That is almost a world record. Many of these people are old and sick or were born in the country. Some of them have never been outside the country and do not desire to leave the country. There are some of them whose farming activities are in actual danger on account of the severe drought prevailing at present in parts of South-West and which is more severe than that of 1933. The position is becoming one for actual concern and the possessions of many of these people are in danger. I want to ask the Minister whether he will take the position of these people into consideration and not to mete out equal treatment to all. They are not all of them German Nazis and a danger to the State. There are men who conduct themselves quietly and I would like the Minister to take deserving cases into consideration. There are old people and people worthy of respect and there are respectable people who assisted that country in its difficult times, who built it up and who rendered valuable service to the country. At present they are in the camps. The war is over. I do not say that people who are a danger to the State and will later on be repatriated should be released. But there are numbers of those people whom you know and whom we know were never a danger to the State and who never took part in anything which went against the war or against the Government. Those are people who will never conduct themselves in that manner and were peace loving nationals of the country. I want to ask the Minister to take their cases into consideration. I have referred some of those cases to the Minister’s Department, but they were not successful. Are you not able to take into consideration those cases and the cases of young people who were born and grew up in the country, people who have never been outside our country and possibly will never leave South-West —especially where the farming activities of those people on account of the drought are in great danger? After all they produce for us. [Time limit.]

I wish to raise a few matters in connection with the internment of the leader of the Greyshirts. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the leader of the Greyshirts did not do anything irregular whatsoever during the war. For five years during the war he behaved in a calm and orderly fashion. At the outbreak of war, we thought that he would be one of the first persons to be interned. But by his orderly behaviour he safely negotiated all dangers until the 2nd November, 1944. Before the war, he took part in many activities which perhaps made him tread on dangerous ground.

May I point out to the hon. member that this matter has already been raised and I cannot allow him to repeat what has been said.

I put certain questions to the Minister and this matter has only been mentioned by one person as far as I know. I say that before the war, the leader of the Greyshirts was organising a party which was allowed by law, according to the reply given by the Minister on questions. When the war against Germany broke out, his pre-war activities put him in a dangerous position, but he behaved in such an orderly fashion that the Minister never had any reason to intern him. During the by-election at Wakkerstroom, the leader of the Greyshirts did show himself there a few times and as it appeared clearly, that election was won by the Nationalist Party, partly as a result of the influence exerted by the leader of the Greyshirts. We feel that the only offence he has committed is that this seat was won by the Nationalist Party through the quiet influence exercised by him as leader of the Greyshirts. We feel that he has been interned not because he participated in any way whatsoever in wrongful practices designed to obstruct the war effort, not because he took part in activities which brought him into conflict with the Government in respect of the war, but because he concerned himself with the election at Wakkerstroom. Quite truthfully, that is the wrong done by the leader of the Greyshirts and nothing else. The Minister ordered him to be arrested on the 2nd November, 1944. I then asked the Minister whether the leader of the Greyshirts had been interned and if so why? I further asked him whether he had been put into prison before he had been interned, and, if so, why? Thirdly, I asked him whether he had been detained for examination; and, if so, whether he was examined by the police; and if he was examined by the police, why either a charge was not laid against him or he was not released. I also further asked the Minister what his policy was with regard to the Greyshirts. The Minister’s reply to the first two questions was that he had not been locked up in a prison, but that in the interest of the State, he had been detained on the 2nd November, 1944, in terms of Section 15 of the National Emergency Regulations. The Minister’s reply stated further: “Following a hunger-strike, he was taken to the Pretoria General Hospital on the 10th November, and after the internment order had been issued on the 14th November, 1944, he was transferred to the internment section of the hospital. During the period he was detained, certain questions were put to him.” The Minister admits here that he was entitled to do something else. The Minister wishes to prove that he was guilty of certain activities designed to obstruct the war effort, that he had become a dangerous person. The Minister denies the fact that he was in gaol. The leader of the Greyshirts was arrested and he was actually locked up in gaol. There he started a hunger-strike, and a few days later he was taken to the hospital. Now the Minister states in reply to these questions that he was taken to the General Hospital, and that after the hunger-strike, he was sent to the internment section of the hospital. He was never in the hospital. The Minister does not answer these questions fairly. He was in the prison and not in the hospital. After the order for his internment had been issued, he was sent to the internment hospital. I cannot understand how the Minister could reply to these questions, which were fairly put, in such an evasive manner. As the matter stands now, it is clear that this person was interned as a result of his political activities in connection with the by-election in Wakkerstroom. The Minister now comes along and he makes a hostage of a Union national. Instead of sending him to the ordinary internment camp for Union nationals, he sent him to Baviaanspoort where the Germans are interned, although he is a born Union national. It does not matter what his name is. How many Union nationals are not sitting on the opposite side who are of German descent and have German names. The name makes no difference. Why should, in his case especially, exception be taken to the fact that he has a German name? [Time limit.]

At an earlier stage I quoted verbatim from a speech made by the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) in which he made a definite charge of high treason against a member not of this House, but of Another Place, and he said he knew that the Minister knew that this Senator was guilty. I want to repeat the ipsissima verba.

On a point of explanation, I think I replied to that while the hon. member was out of the House.

No, I was present and it is precisely the Minister’s reply I wish to deal with because my submission is that the insinuation passed on this Senator has been made worse by the Minister’s reply. I read the relevant part of the statement—

I say that is entirely improper language to use against any member. I want to remind the Minister that it was not rebellion of which the Senator was accused, but high treason. I make all allowances for the wild charges made by certain members over there, but I say that a specific statement that the Minister knows full well that the Senator is guilty of high treason and will not do anything about it is a very serious matter. I have already dealt with the hon. member for Gezina, and said that he had no possible ground for making this statement. What was the Minister’s reply? “I have submitted the papers to the Attorney-General, who refused to prosecute”. I want to ask the Minister: Were papers submitted to the Attorney-General which could possibly by any stretch of imagination show that the Senator was guilty of high treason?

No.

That is what I want made clear and to have on record. That is why I say I hope the Minister will express strong disapproval that a member can get up and say on no evidence whatever that a member of Parliament is guilty of high treason. If he was charged with anything else the Minister could still say that the Attorney-General states there is no case against him, but we have a definite statement here that this Senator was guilty of high treason and that the Minister knows he was guilty. So far the Minister has not denied this statement that he knows the Senator is guilty of high treason. I know the Minister knows this is simply political propaganda of the lowest type. I know that no hon. member of this House, not even that hon. member’s Party, will really pay attention to that statement, but these things get known outside amongst the native people. I will be asked at meetings whether Senator Basner was guilty of high treason. All the Minister has to say is that the papers submitted to the Attorney-General had nothing to do with high treason, and I think it would be better still if the Minister says what those papers were. It is said that the Minister knows that the Senator is guilty of high treason. That is serious. His reply is that no charge of high treason has been laid. I have the feeling that if the Senator concerned did not represent the native people it would not have been said. I know that that Senator was prosecuted once because I was counsel in the case, and I normally keep out of the discussions here any matter in which I have been professionally engaged, not because it is contrary to professional etiquette or to any rules of the House, but because I think it is a desirable rule to follow. I appeared for this Sena or on the charge which was made, and I cannot help feeling that the charge must have been laid because such statements as were made here were made. There was no shadow of evidence to support the charge. I cannot understand how the Department of Justice could have brought that case. I had the advantage of addressing the magistrate. The magistrate stopped me because it was quite clear that there was no evidence. It was a case in which this Senator found policemen rounding up natives for poll tax under circumstances which definitely might have led to a breach of the peace. It was done during the time of the Alexandra bus boycott. To do it at that time would give the natives the impression that the police were on the side of the bus owners and the hon. Senator pointed this out to the police. He pointed out to the Native Affairs Department what impression this would make on the mind of the native, and the Department gave immediate instructions not to continue with this ridiculous business of rounding up natives right on the bus route. They accepted the hon. Senator’s advice and then the Government turned round and prosecuted him on the ridiculous charge of advising the natives to break away from the police. It was absolutely groundless. I cross-examined the officials of the Native Affairs Department who at first tried in examination-in-chief to say that there had been an admission by Senator Basner and who immediately resiled from that position in cross-examination, and the magistrate dismissed the case. Now we hear a member of this House say that this Senator is guilty of high treason. I say that that case was baseless and I want to ask the Minister now as to whether or not facts were placed before the Attorney-General which could possibly have given rise to any case of high treason. It is not a question as to whether or not the Attorney-General thought there were facts to support a charge of high treason, but whether there was any shadow of suspicion that this Senator was guilty of high treason.

I thought I had made the position quite clear, but it is probably my fault. There was no question at any time of high treason as far as Senator Basner was concerned. Let me make it quite clear that I sent no papers to the Attorney-General.

I thought you said that.

The papers were not sent to the Attorney-General by me. Complaints were made and taken to the Attorney-General in the ordinary course, and not only was there no question of high treason but there was no offence of any kind committed at any time by Senator Basner.

There was therefore no justification for the categoric statement that “you know he was guilty of high treason”.

Why were the papers sent to the Attorney-General?

Complaints were sent to the Attorney-General in the ordinary course of events.

But what about the charge of incitement?

That is a different matter. The Attorney-General examined the complaint and found that there was no case.

*With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) I want to say that I will go into that, but it is not a matter which exclusively falls under this vote. They were de-naturalised, but not by this Department; but in any case I will have the matter investigated. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen), I thought that I had made the matter clear. I explained that the case of Weichardt was still sub judice.

They wanted to know how long the case would still be sub judice.

It is difficult to say, because allegations are made and counter-allegations are made, but that is not a matter which I can discuss now.

Can you tell us what the date of the appeal was?

No, I cannot. It is not only the date of the appeal, but also the time during which he furnishes the data. With regard to the points put to me in connection with Section 57, let me say this: the first part of this section has been read but I want to read further from that section:

It was a question of the theft of diamonds. The diamonds were stolen at Kleinsee and at Alexander Bay. They were stolen from the State diggings. More than a hundred persons were involved in the case. The diamonds were stolen by supervisors and were cleverly brought out and sent to different parts. Some of them were sent to Johannesburg and some to Loureneo Marques and some of them to Cairo. The fact was that this was happening on such a scale, that the Government could only come to the conclusion that they were going to the enemy. There is one case I wish to mention, apart from those I have already mentioned. The diamonds were purchased on the illicit market at double the price they would have cost in the legal market. No person would be prepared to pay double the legal market price unless he was in desperate need of the article, and it is obvious that no person would pay double the price on the illicit market, if he could get them on the legal market. That fact alone immediately gives rise to the suspicion that they were intended for Germany. Industrial diamonds are used for the manufacture of ammunition, but other diamonds serve the purpose just as well. Where industrial diamonds can be obtained they are used and as I have said, they are especially used in the manufacture of ammunition and it is quite clear that in all these cases, not one of the lawyers who appeared ever questioned the regulations or the applicability thereof. That is the information from the Government attorney that not in a single case was the applicability of the regulations questioned. I say that this should be compared to martial law and not to the ordinary law of the land.

Assuming that it was a correct application of a war measure, do you approve of the treatment received by the persons who were detained for examination; is that the policy of the Department and from where do you get the authority?

The policy of the Department is not to treat persons with any violence.

Do you approve of the kind of treatment I have quoted?

No.

Is that a policy declared for the Department?

No, not as far as I know. The officer concerned, a very good officer, is on his way here. He has done good work and I will discuss the matter personally with him and have it personally investigated because it is not the policy that we should obtain our information by any other means than by detention and examination. It is not a part of the policy that the person should suffer from the circumstances. I hope that it will not happen again in the future, because I agree that these regulations should only be applied where it is absolutely essential.

Could they not be repealed now?

No, we cannot do that now. Take, for instance, the case of the assault on the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). We do not know what steps it will be necessary to take and we cannot repeal the regulation now. I do not like this type of regulation, although I accept every responsibility for it during war-time as far as sabotage is concerned, but I do not want it to be employed in other cases where the safety of the State is not threatened. If that did happen, I will take steps to see to it that it does not happen again in future.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 37—“Superior Courts”, £300,000,

I would like to make a few remarks in connection with this vote. In the first place I want to refer to a delicate matter. I do not propose to enter into it but I want to say to the Minister of Justice and the Acting Prime Minister that it is a most unsound practice to use the judiciary for appointments of persons who are mere political pals. It is very difficult for me to speak about this matter. I would not like io say anything in this Parliament against any Judge but the fact is that the Minister recently made an appointment which was purely an appointment of a person who was a political pal, a personal friend. The appointment was received very unfavourably by Judges and practising barristers and the public in general. I can assure the Minister of that and without entering into details I only want to ask that the Prime Minister will ensure that the Minister of Justice does not follow a policy whereby in the case of Judges personal friends are appointed but that only those who are the most competent be appointed from the Bar. I want to ask the Prime Minister to ensure that it does not become the practice to find positions on the bench for friends. I do not desire to go deeper into the matter but there is a strong feeling about in the country. I reiterate that Judges, practising barristers and the public outside feel that in the one case at least a person was appointed to the bench who did not comply with the high qualifications which should be observed in the appointment of Judges. In connection with superior courts I also want to raise a matter which I raised last year and that is the question of stenographers in the superior courts and the practice of having the proceedings in court cases recorded in shorthand. A position arose last year which was almost untenable. I have here several newspaper cuttings and a number of reports which indicate that for example in Johannesburg and Pretoria court cases at a certain time had come to a standstill and could not be tried because there were no shorthand writers. In Johannesburg, because there was no shorthand writer available, a case which had been adjourned three times was adjourned for a fourth time in a superior court. That was in August, 1944. In connection with the Witwatersrand Division of the Supreme Court last year I read from the report—

And the reason was that the Department paid them too little. There is a report from Pretoria that the Minister of Justice is discussing the matter with the Public Service Commission and that there are not sufficient shorthand writers. It is stated that the Minister was asked for increased remuneration but they say the recommendation was rejected and a number of shorthand writers resigned at the end of July. Then further there is the difficulty, also in the Transvaal before the Springs Circuit Court, that the cases could not be proceeded with as there were no stenographers because the Department paid them too little. Eventually, after much difficulty, the services of a local lady were obtained.’ It appears that the Government refuses to pay overtime to stenographers. In this regard I want to say that it is clear to me that we do not at present devote sufficient attention to stenographers as a special professional class, a profession requiring high qualifications, a profession which should be recognised in our modern society, in the commercial world and should in our public service be accorded a high place. We do not ’ live in the days when one could say it is a shorthand writer recording the proceedings in shorthand and transcribing it. It is a profession calling for a thorough training and experience and if we want good shorthand writers, who are today indispensable in Parliament, in superior courts and in the public service then it is essential that we should remunerate those men and women who devote themselves to it at a very good rate. And if we pay them well we will obtain them. It is just because they are poorly paid that we dot not get them. The shorthand writer has to sit in court all day long. For hours he has to record evidence. He arrives at the end of the day and the court decides to sit up to six or seven o’clock in the evening and the shorthand writer has to remain there and he is not paid overtime. The ordinary clerk in the public service is in a position to go home at half past four in the afternoon. This man does hard work all day long and perhaps has to remain at his work up to nine or ten o’clock at night and he receives no extra pay for work that is extremely exhausting. But apart from that, we who are in court the whole day long know how often the question arises as to whether a person has said this or that. If the report of the stenographer is not a good one then the whole case perhaps collapses. It is most essential to have a good report. That is the first point, that we should be prepared for example where we employ outside stenographers for that type of work to pay them adequately for that difficult and important work. In the second place, where we have stenographers in the employ of superior and other courts we should remunerate them well to encourage others to take it up as a profession. We cannot do without them. Then I also want to make a plea that public servants who are stenographers should be afforded an opportunity of rising in the service beyond the position of being purely shorthand writers. Many of them at present complain that they are appointed as shorthand writers and that the position is a dead end. They get no further than being stenographers. The position will be alleviated if one is in a position, for example, to say to a stenographer: If you are proficient in shorthand and have a knowledge of law you may possibly occupy a very high post as a magistrate, for instance. If the magistrate himself is a very proficient stenographer of what great value would he not be to us if he is able to record the whole case in shorthand. He will be able to save much time that way. At present many hours are lost that way in preliminary examination in magistrates’ courts in that the magistrate has to record the proceedings in his own handwriting. We must give more encouragement to our young men and women to become competent and well-trained shorthand writers. For that purpose we must pay them more and make available higher posts in the public service to them and we must also pay them according to their work in the case of overtime. This question of payment for overtime is a serious one. When the ordinary clerk in the railway service or elsewhere has to work overtime he is paid. It is unfair to expect shorthand writers to work overtime for hours without extra pay. The stenographer is the person who is busy all the time during the proceedings. He is almost unable to breathe. He gets no time to rest. He has to sit and work continuously and it is most strenuous and important work. I trust that the Minister will again go into this matter because the present position is nto sound. I would like to learn from him what has happened in connection with last year’s strike by stenographers in the Supreme Court in Johannesburg and how the matter has been settled and what has become of the Minister’s recommendation to the Public Service Commission, according to a press report, that better conditions had to be created for shorthand writers and in which it is stated that his recommendation had been rejected by the Public Service Commission. I would appreciate it if he would inform us on this matter. The last matter to which I want to refer concerns higher allowances for members of juries, especially in our circuit courts. It is no longer possible for a member of a jury to proceed to town and find accommodation there at 10s. per day. Hotels in smaller places charge up to 15s. per day for accommodation. A member of the jury has possibly to remain in town for a week or more and he is paid an allowance of 10s. per day and he has to pay for his own accommodation. The jury system is not a system for members of juries to make money but at the same time the State has to take steps to indemnify members of juries against expenditure which they must necessarily incur. A member of the jury has to spend a considerable amount when he proceeds to town and he is obliged to spend more than his allowance. Often poor people have to go to town to serve as members of juries and they cannot afford it. I therefore want to appeal to the Minister to ensure that a higher allowance is paid to members of juries, especially in the rural areas. In the city he goes to court only in the mornings but in the rural areas he has to proceed to town and perhaps has to remain there for a whole week and his expenses exceed his alowance.

With regard to the question of shorthand writers, what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said is quite correct. The Department foresaw the difficuty at the time and recommended to the Public Service Commission that higher salaries should be paid, but we did not succeed in having it passed. Subsequently there was a strike by the shorthand writers which complicated the matter and then the Public Service Commission decided to raise the maximum salary of shorthand writers. A number of them came back, and since that time we have not had the same difficulty, but the position still remains very difficult. It is very difficult to obtain shorthand writers, because we also want them for the magistrates’ courts and not only for the Supreme Court. But we find difficulty in obtaining shorthand writers. In many newspapers today there are no longer verbatim reports and there is no longer the same number of verbatim reporters which we could get from the newspapers in the past. I went into this matter last year. Owing to the fact that we had a shortage of staff, it was difficult to put this into operation but the aim is to give an allowance to those who qualify in the Public Service and it will also aid them with promotion.

Has that been approved of; will that happen now?

No, it has not been approved of yet, but I personally discussed it with the Department and with members of the Public Service Commission. It is no use doing that until we have the personnel.

The point is that you must give the allowance now in order to encourage public servants to take up shorthand.

I realise that if we do not do that, we still find ourselves in a desperate position. And it is also especially with the idea of having a sufficient number of shorthand writers for the magistrates’ courts that the Department has made this recommendation. As far as members of the jury are concerned, I want to say that it has been difficult during the war years to do that. But I fully agree that the allowance to members of a jury is inadequate.

The war was the very time during which you should have done it.

It was very difficult owing to the large expenditure it would have entailed. I will go into this matter and also discuss it with the hon. member. I agree that the allowance should be higher, especially in the case of those who have to come to the towns from the country. But even in the towns one finds people who go to the courts for the whole of the day and they lose their ordinary pay for the day. When it was introduced originally 10s. per day was worth much more than it is today.

The Minister of Justice has a habit of often doing inexplicable things. Some years ago he made an appointment of a judge to one of the courts in South Africa, against whom exceptional criticism was expressed. The Minister will probably remember that. There was criticism from the Bar and it was generally felt that the person was not the best choice for the appointment in the circumstances. The position with regard to the appointment of a judge is that a person should be appointed, who, in the first place, has the confidence of the Bar, and in the second place, a person should be appointed who has the confidence of the public. It is very necessary in the most responsible position occupied by a judge, that the Minister should take this particular qualification into consideration when making such an appointment. The matter which I now wish to raise is one which lawyers and members of the Bar are very loathe to discuss in view of the position held by them. But I may say that what I am saying here tonight is something in which every member of the Bar with whom I have discussed it, agrees with me 100 per cent. Another appointment to the Bench has now been made which makes it almost inexplicable to understand how the Minister could have appointed such a person. We expect that the people appointed as judges should be persons who have been prominent members of the Bar in the town where they practised. In the first place, one expects them to have the confidence of their colleagues and in the second place, one expects them to be persons who had such a practise in that town that they showed proof of having the ability to fill the position of a judge. The last appointment made by the Minister is of a person who does not satisfy any of these requirements. The Minister appointed a person the other day, who had practically no practice in the town where he lived except for the cases given to him by the Minister. He was a member of a small circle who were known for their political activities as Roosites and this is a person who does not have the confidence of a single person at the Bar at which he practised, a man who had practically no practice, except for the work he got from the Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister has appointed this person, I just wish to tell him that he should make enquiries in the town where the person has been appointed and he will find out what his colleagues think of him. If he does that, he will gain adequate information to prove that this appointment made by him is a wrong appointment; that this person, has as far as his knowledge of law is concerned, and so far as the respect is concerned which he should receive from his colleagues at the Bar, that all this is of such a nature that he is one of the last persons who should have been appointed a judge. The point we are driving at is really this: that the public of South Africa is getting very tired of the manner in which the Minister is appointing his personal friends to important positions in South Africa, irrespective of whether they have the necessary ability, irrespective of whether they have the necessary confidence of their colleagues, irrespective of whether they have the necessary confidence of the public, but purely and simply because they are ’his pals, because they belong to a small coterie to which he belongs. The public is tired of that, especially where it concerns the Bench. Persons should be appointed on account of their knowledge and their ability and the confidence which the public and their colleagues place in them. This person has none of these qualities but he belongs to the small clique to which the Minister belongs and of which he is perhaps the leader. It is time that an end should be made to the appointment of people on such grounds. I regard this last appointment as nothing less than a scandal and when I say that I regard it as such, I speak as a layman, but that is also the opinion of nearly all the people who practise with him at the Bar whether they are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking or whether they are Nationalists or supporters of the party on the opposite side.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised the matter of the shorthand writers in the Supreme Court in Johannesburg. The Minister admitted that the position was not sound. We do feel that the shorthand writers applied for an increase of salary which was not unreasonable and something should have been done to give those people better remuneration. If my information in this connection is correct, then the position today is that the same persons again have to do the work in the Supreme Court which previously they did for a salary but now they are doing it under contract with the Government and the contract price paid to them by the Government is practically three times as much as they received previously. It appears to me as if somewhere there was shortsightedness in this matter, whether it was the Minister or the Public Service Commission, or his Department, I do not know. But somewhere there was something wrong and the fact is that today these people are still doing the work in the Supreme Court but at a very much higher fee. Then there is a further matter. In spite of the fact that these persons are receiving very much higher fees under the contract, the Court in Johannesburg quite often cannot sit, because there are judges who refuse to sit unless there are competent shorthand writers. If an appeal is lodged in a case, it is impossible unless there is a proper record, and if it is a contentious matter, judges often refuse to proceed with the case until competent shorthand writers have been obtained. The result is, I understand, that there are persons who have to wait for a year or more before their cases can be heard, simply because no record can be kept. The Minister will say that it is difficult to obtain competent shorthand writers, but the whole matter is unsatisfactory. Then also, in Johannesburg, in the Supreme Court, according to my information, there is not a single interpreter who is able to interpret from English to Afrikaans and from Afrikaans to English. There is no official interpreter for that work. The work is done by clerks or by interpreters who may interpret native languages, but there is no official person who is the interpreter from Afrikaans to English or from English to Afrikaans. We feel that the time is more than ripe in South Africa, where bilingualism has in any case to be applied, for an interpreter to be available in the Supreme Court and also in the other Courts of the land. If there is a shortage of shorthand writers, I still do not think that the Minister will say that it is impossible to obtain interpreters because they are so hard to get. It should not be impossible to obtain an interpreter to do this important work.

Before the Minister replies I would like to put another question in connection with stenographers, namely, the question of payment for overtime. I want to ask whether the Government is not prepared to pay the shorthand writers if they work overtime?

That is another matter I will look into. It is difficult to say anything definite but I think it should be considered. With regard to interpreters in the Supreme Court, there is Mr. Dovie, of the Free State, who speaks both English and Afrikaans.

He is not classified as an interpreter for Afrikaans.

But he interprets in both languages. He is the chief interpreter. Then there is Mr. White, and I know from personal experience that he speaks excellently in Afrikaans and English and that he is an excellent interpreter.

He was appointed as interpreter for native languages, never for Afrikaans.

But he does the work very well, and Mr. Dovie is excellent. But in any case we will go further into the whole matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 38.—“Magistrates and District Administration”, £855,000,

I now wish to raise the matter which I touched on a few days ago, namely, that of the Magistrate’s Office in Pretoria. I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister that although we have a new and beautiful Magistrate’s Office in Pretoria, the position is sometimes extremely difficult, especially when business people are subpoenaed to give evidence in what may be a very small case. I have frequently received complaints in my own constituency, and I think that they are well founded, to the effect that persons are subpoenaed to give evidence in some or other small case, people who are very busy and who may have to be back at a certain time for urgent business. They are summoned to appear at ten o’clock in the morning and when they arrive there, there is a number of small native cases which have to be taken first, possibly cases in which one native assaulted another, or something similar, and consequently these people have to wait for hours on end and may have to come back again in the afternoon, simply because there is no proper arrangement of cases. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to arrange the cases in such a manner, that when a business man, who has urgent business, is subpoenaed to give evidence, the case shall have precedence. I know of instances where I myself was subpoenaed to give evidence in the Magistrate’s Court and where a large number of dispute cases and pass cases in which natives were concerned, were heard by the Court, before our case was given a hearing. The natives are taken from the cells and these small cases are first disposed of. It seems to me to be unnecessary and there could be a better arrangement of cases. I would like the Minister to give attention to that.

I am sorry to hear that the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) was kept waiting while he was a witness in a case. It is an experience many witnesses have had. I want to put to the Minister what I believe is a deserving matter and which I can assure him and the Committee can be put right with a very small administrative change. What I am referring to is the administration of the “in forma pauperis” rules in the magistrates’ courts. I hate the term in forma pauperis. I do not like the term “pauper”. I have had some experience in the way the poor persons rules function in the Supreme Court; they do not function badly. The judges have laid down a means test, and anybody who can show an affidavit that he is a poor person and not able to meet his family responsibilities and go to law at the same time, is given leave to sue in forma pauperis. In theory the same holds good in the magistrate’s court, but I can assure the Minister it does not work in that way. An association with which I am connected, the Legal Aid Bureau, has made representations to the Rules Board to lay down more elestic tests as to whether a person can bring an action or defend an action as a poor person. My experience in connection with legal aid is that magistrates never will say the person is sufficently poor to be granted leave 1o have free legal defence. They seem to interpret the term “pauper” or “poor person” as somebody who is absolutely indigent, who is unable to work or is too old to work. That seems to be their interpretation as to when they will give a person leave to sue or have free legal defence. I submit to the Minister the criterion should be laid down for magistrates, though not in absolute terms. You cannot say if a man is earning so much a week he is a poor person. The criterion should be as to whether a man can really afford to litigate—I am talking, of course, of civil cases—and at the same time discharge his family responsibilities on the lowest level to keep himself and his family in decency. It should not be difficult for the Minister to lay down such a criterion for the guidance of magistrates. We have had several social surveys as to the minimum income on which any family can live in reasonable decency. I submit that magistrates should give leave to litigants in civil cases if they fall below the figures given in those social surveys. A man may have ten children or he may have one child, a man may have private means of his own. But I submit to the Minister that the mere fact that a man can work should not disqualify him from proceeding as a poor person. This raises an important point of principle. We hear all sorts of talk regarding what services should be free; that medical attendance should be free; that a man should have free services of all sorts and kinds. But if there is any service a man should have free if he needs it in a free country, it is justice. It is no good our law laying down what the rights of individuals are so long as enforcement of those rights depends on how much money a man has. I say the maxim of “one law for the rich and another for the poor” is absolutely true in this country, and in most countries, not because the law differs for the rich and the poor but because the ability of a man to enforce or defend his civil rights depends on how much money he has. I am a lawyer, and lawyers have been often accused of feathering their own nests and overcharging the public and making it impossible for people to support their rights. I believe that charge is absolutely false. If you have a law which denies to a really necessitous person the right of enforcing his civil rights unless he has a certain amount of money, he has to go to a lawyer and the lawyer cannot set a means test for his client. The attorneys do an enormous amount of work free and so do the advocates. It is not their fault. There is no aspersion on the legal profession. But you cannot leave it just to the legal profession. Its members have to make a living like anybody else. What I am asking the Minister is to tell the magistrates when they are deciding on applications to sue in forma pauperis, they should not decide that a man is only a pauper if he has not a bean in his pocket, or if he is an invalid or disabled. The test should be whether his income is adequate to support him and his family and at the same time go to law. That is the test in principle. I do not ask the Minister to lay down to the magistrate any special standard of income the man must fall below in order to be given leave to sue in forma pauperis. You have to take the merits of each case. But the principle should be clear. If a man is working and earns insufficient to support himself and his family, and his rights are infringed by another member of the community, or if he is sued in the courts by somebody who says he has infringed their rights, he should be given the right to litigate free. Moreover, if he is earning sufficient to support his wife and family but his income is not sufficient to meet the costs of the case, he should also be allowed this privilege. The Minister is a member of the same profession as myself, and I know he appreciates from personal experience that it very seldom happens in the magistrate’s courts that leave is given to sue in forma pauperis, and even when leave is given it can take two forms. The one form is when the magistrate appoints an attorney to act for the poor person. The other is where he simply tells the Clerk of the Court to write out the process free of charge, and the man has then to conduct his own case. The latter is quite useless. It is unlikely that a man who has to have recourse to this procedure will be able to conduct his own case even when the Clerk of the Court writes out the process. [Time limit.]

I merely want to make a request to the Minister and it is a justifiable request, namely, that a special justice of the peace be appointed in the town Hobhouse. It was virtually promised during past years but it was always said that there is a war on, but now that peace has been declared I trust that the Minister will meet us. Hobhouse is approximately 30 miles from all the surrounding towns and people experience great difficulty in having their affairs transacted over such long distances. Hobhouse adjoins Basutoland, there are many native cases and when the court sits there periodically the large numbers of motor cars round the court house is a singular sight while the court is in session. It causes a lot of inconvenience. People sometimes have to wait hours before they can be assisted. Statistics of the activities there are in your possession, and if you peruse them you will find that the appointment of a special justice of the peace is justified.

I would like to bring a few small matters to the notice of the Minister. Our magistrates in country towns have a particularly difficult work. We know that they are also officials who are liable to transfer at any time. They can never acquire fixed property in the town where they are and, consequently, it is essential that they should be furnished with comfortable homes and also comfortable offices. I want to ask the Minister to make provision for that. The roof of the magistrate’s office leaks. Whenever it rains, the floors are sopping wet. Application has been made repeatedly for improvements. Some sort of inspector is sent and he patches up here and there, but that does not improve the position. The same applies to the dwellings. There is not even sufficient putty to mend the windowpanes properly. Proper dwellings and offices should be erected.

I think the hon. member should raise this under the Loan Estimates.

Then there is another matter. Clerks in the magistrate’s office have to serve a probationary period. Is it not possible to make the shortest period in one place six months? It happens now that they are in one place for only three months. They do not even become fully conversant with the work. Then they are transferred again. I think it would be in their own interests to stay there for a longer period and I want to ask the Minister to make the period before which they can be transferred at least six months.

I think I am right in saying that we look upon magistrates today as officers of the State who by virtue of their position are the chief administrative officers of the Government for the towns or the districts to which they have been appointed. The magistrate is not only called upon to pass judgment on his own fellow beings but various other important and responsible duties are assigned to him. If, however, we look at the salary scales of magistrates we find that they are too low for the high and responsible positions occupied by them. The salaries in the first place compare unfavourably with those for other outside professions. The salaries paid in the Union also compare unfavourably with those paid to magistrates in Rhodesia. Their income must be of such a nature as to enable them to comply with the requirements of their positions and they must be safeguarded against temptation. Here we find that 124 second grade magistrates draw salaries of £750 and 63 first grade magistrates £850, while the Commissioner for Child Welfare of the Department of Social Welfare on the Rand, similarly draws a salary of £850. He is paid the same salary as a first grade magistrate. I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider a reorganisation and alteration in the scales. Then I want to put a further question to the Minister in connection with a shortcoming in the Department of Justice. A person entering the service with the degrees of B.A., LL.B. is accorded seniority of five years. A person with a B.A. degree is paid an allowance, but if he obtains the LL.B. degree after entering the service he is not given additional consideration. I consider that unfair. Perhaps the Minister is able to advance a reason. I am unable to find one. I consider it should be arranged that a person with a B.A. degree for example should be given three years seniority and if he obtains the LL.B, degree he should be granted a further two years. Surely it is in the interests of the Department that they should become more qualified for their task by further study. I consider my request a fair one. Another matter which I merely want to raise concerns acting appointments. I find that there are 800 second grade clerks in the service, 238 first grade clerks and senior clerks and 250 third grade clerks. Now it often happens that a first grade clerk, for example, has to relieve an assistant magistrate. He is employed in that position bears a greater responsibility but is not paid accordingly. If we peruse this list we find that of the 238 first grade clerks almost all of them have reached the maximum of their scales and I consider it unfair to let first grade clerks act as assistant magistrates. I want to ask the hon. Minister to eliminate the bottleneck so that more senior positions become available in the service to comply with the requirements of the Department and which will be to the general benefit of the State. Then I want to deal with the matter of transfers. Many magistrates are dissatisfied with certain transfers. We know that transfers are unavoidable but should under present conditions only be affected in cases in which it is urgently necessary. Consideration should be given to the difficulty of packing furniture. Is it not possible for the Government to enter into a contract with firms which undertake the packing? Instead of the official who is being transferred entering into the contract with the packers the Government must enter into the contract so that the Government would be in a position to arrange for liability in case of damage to furniture and depreciation thereof. Then we have the question of residence. The magistrate who is entitled to a residence has to surrender 12½ per cent. of his salary. Many of the residences are old and at the rate of 12½ per cent. they have been paid for. I know that conditions have been difficult during the war but I trust the Minister will now take steps for improvement of the residences. In Johannesburg there is a residence to which the Special magistrate is entitled. It is, however, situated in such a place that it is never used. It is unfair that the chief magistrate of the Union should compete in the open market for a house with other magistrates on the Rand. I would appreciate learning from the Minister that he is able to do something in that direction and that residences will be made available for all magistrates.

As far as the magistrates are concerned, I agree that they should be paid more. That is a question that is being considered by the Public Service Commission of Enquiry. As far as the residences are concerned, that is a matter for the Department of Public Works. It is of course an expensive item, but we will look into the matters mentioned by the hon. member. With regard to the people who have the B.A. degree, if they obtain the degree of service, they are promoted.

I refer to those who enter the service with the degree of B.A., LL.B.

I have not all the information with me but I shall go into the matter. The question of the bottleneck is also something which the Commission of Enquiry will deal with. As far as the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) is concerned, I want to say that the policy is to keep a magistrate in one place for three years, but sometimes it is a question of vacancies and promotion, and, especially in view of the shortage of personnel, it has not always been possible to apply that policy.

What about the packing of furniture?

When they are transferred, their furniture is transported for them.

But the contract is between the official and the furniture packer. We want it to be between the Government and the packer.

I will give the information to the member on that matter later. To the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) I want to say that the matter raised by him will also be invesigated. With regard to Hobhouse, we realise that that is an important post on the border. The Public Service Commission has sent its inspectors there. I will ask them to send someone there.

With regard to the member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) I would be very glad if he would give particulars which I could lay before the present committee fixing up the rules, of which Mr. Hoal, the Secretary, is a member.

It is not a matter for the Rules Board.

I know, but it can be gone into. It is a matter of very grave importance which has been raised, and one causing concern in many countries at the present time. It is the vindication of a right a man has, not only the poor man, but the man who is not a rich man. He takes a very grave risk in going to court. It may ruin him or hamper him for the rest of his life, and it is difficult to know exactly what to do. There is also the question raised in Great Britain and other countries of the poor man who must fight a corporation who run him into all the courts. It is a matter which will have to be considered. It cannot be done via the informa pauperis method but it is a matter which should be thoroughly investigated because, if I may be allowed to repeat myself, it is of such grave importance. No ordinary man dare risk a fight with a wealthy man or a corporation today. It will have to be considered. I must say that I have given quite a good deal of thought to it, but what the remedy is it is very difficult to say. I do feel, however, that some remedy will have to be found sooner or later. What is the good of having a right if one dare not vindicate it, with the result, as those of us who have been in legal practice know, that very often sooner than put a man into that position one advises him to settle or to forego his right, because even if he wins it will cost him a good deal. Now that the war is over a good deal of attention will have to be given to that.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39—“Prisons and Gaols,” £955,000.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the accommodation in the gaol at Port Elizabeth. As he knows the Government realised as far back as between ten and fifteen years ago that the accommodation was so bad that it would be necessary to have a new gaol built. They took steps to dispose of the existing gaol, but nothing has happened since. The position is most deplorable.

If the hon. member wants a new gaol to be built, he should raise the matter under the Loan Estimates.

In any case, I merely want to draw the attention of the Minister to the criticism exercised by a Judge of the Circuit Court when he was in Port Elizabeth recently, and found after his inspection, that the position there was terrible. He pointed out that first offenders and habitual criminals are put together in the gaol. I think the time has arrived when the Hon. the Minister should help us in this respect. The population of Port Elizabeth has increased considerably as a result of the industrial expansion.

Are you now pleading for your supporters?

I want to express the hope that the Minister will see to it that the necessary funds for a new prison will be provided for on the estimates next year.

I do not want to detain the House, but I want to discuss an important matter from a practical viewpoint. In my constituency intensive farming is practised at some places and during the course of the last year we have experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining the requisite labour. We have been obliged to fetch convicts 20 miles in our motor lorries. Now the position is this, that the parties concerned have to fetch those convicts in the morning and in the evening we have to take them back. That means two trips there and back, just to employ these 20 convicts. I have been instructed by the farmers’ association where the farming community is densely settled to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to have an institution at such places so that the prisoners can be detained there. These convicts are mainly farm labourers who have been sentenced to periods from three weeks to two months. They are labourers from the farms who know about farm work, and if we could have such an institution where the people are densely settled it will be a great concession for the farmers. The farmers have stated that they are prepared to build the lock-up themselves according to specification.

And will they also fill it themselves?

It is a very serious matter for these people and I hope the Minister will regard it in that light. It is a practical proposal that I am making here, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to it.

There is one point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, namely the question of growing more vegetables at many prisons in the country areas. In many of the Transkei prisons I have noticed a very commendable increase in this practice during the last few years. I do not know whether it is as a result of the good example set by the gaoler at Kokstad or whether it is a general direction, but I find that there has been a wonderful improvement. We had a particularly good man. He broke up a lot of waste ground, terraced it and used prison labour to grow large quantities of vegetables. It was really an attraction to the whole countryside, but after two years he was taken away to Pretoria, I understand to do some permanent job in the office. I think that if a man like that were to be employed to extend this practice, if he were made a sort of inspector and put in charge of such work, it would be an excellent thing from the point of view of providing more food for the prisons, and I also think it will be better if the prisoners were taught gardening under expert supervision, so that they can have something to do at the expiration of their sentences.

Early in the Session there was a discussion about prison reform, resulting from certain disclosures made in a case heard in the Transvaal, and we know that the Minister has appointed a commission to go into the whole question. One of the reasons why the situation developed in that prison, in particular, and in other prisons, was that what goes on within the four walls of a prison is a matter not influenced by public opinion, and it is not so influenced because there is no contact as between representative bodies of the public and the prison administration. Our courts are open to the public and every other Governmental activity can be examined and scrutinised by those sufficiently interested. I want to throw out a suggestion that it should be a matter of encouragement to representative bodies, bodies who by virtue of their standing warrant that recognition, that they should visit prisons for the purpose of seeing what goes on. Such visits should be welcomed. That would be to some extent a guarantee to prevent a situation developing which in time to come might result in disclosures which would again be a source of bewilderment to the public.

I should just like to ask the Minister whether the Public Service Commission of Enquiry will also bestow attention on the wages paid to prison warders.

Yes.

The second point I want to emphasise is linked up with the question put by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens). Farmers are in some cases now permitted to use convict labour on their farms, and I think more should be done in this direction. In the past it has been done in many respects with success. The point I specially want to emphasise is that convicts who do not receive long terms of imprisonment, and especially first offenders, should be kept out of gaol so that they will not be corrupted by the bad habits of old criminals, and they should be used by the farmers on their farms. If they behave themselves well they can serve their time out there. Something has already been done in this direction, and I would like the Minister to extend the system, because it has worked successfully.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen), that last year I had an amount on the Estimates for the construction of a gaol in Port Elizabeth. We shall make a start with it this year, and I hope we shall have it completed before long. In regard to what the hon. members for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) and Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) have said, I shall go into the suggestions they have offered.

I will also go into the point raised by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg). As regards what was raised by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) it has been the policy of the Acting Director, Mr. Hoal, to encourage the growing of vegetables wherever possible and where there is ground. It is done also in many other centres, and it will be encouraged.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 40.—“Police,” £3,800,000.

On several occasions there have been expressions of praise from this side of the House on the work of the police in South Africa. I am one of those who have great respect for the work the police have often done in very difficult circumstances and at the risk of their lives. We feel that and the public in general feel that, and we all sustained a shock recently when we learned that on the retirement of a certain police official, namely Col. Devenish, Deputy-Commissioner of Police for the Western Province, he made a speech to indicate how badly the police were treated. More or less to use his own words he stated that any skolly in Cape Town is better off than a constable. I should like to read out his words that he used in the presence of highly-placed police officers. He said this—

He then referred to the pensions the police got and especially the widows, and he said—

A skolly who throughout his life is doing harm and who has perhaps spent years in gaol receives an old-age pension which is larger than the pension of a widow of a man who has perhaps died while protecting the country against criminals.

A skolly can be a drunkard, but when he gets his old-age pension he receives more than a constable’s widow. He goes on—

That was said in the presence of high police officers, and I do not think he overstated it. The Minister has said that this matter is being considered by the Centlivres Commission. But it is our duty in this House to show the position that arises in the police service and how the polce officers are treated. I do not know why police officials are treated in such a different manner to the other sections of the community. I do not know why they, seeing they often have to endure more privations, receive fewer privileges. I do not know why there is so little encouragement to able young men to join the police force. It takes a constable twelve years in the service to reach the maximum salary of £335 a year, while people who do other work, shop assistants, as Col. Devenish stated, after twelve years in almost every case, receive a much higher salary than £335 a year. At this juncture the Minister of Justice has engaged temporary police at 12s. 6d. a day to do police service as watchmen. It takes a trained policeman five years to receive the remuneration that is now paid to a man appointed temporarily. It is not necessary for me to indicate the reasons why better pay should be given in order to attract a better standard of recruit and to retain those we already have in the police service so that they may not accept other work. I should like to add that it is almost impossible for the constables to marry fairly early in life, and to assume the responsibility of a family. This matter will, however, be enquired into by the commission, and accordingly I shall not now go into the details. I think, however, that it is generally admitted in this House that the police are paid very poorly. Take the pensions. I want to mention a few concrete instances that I personally enquired into to indicate how shabbily they are treated and how it is made impossible for the police to live on their pensions, and how it is no encouragement for people to join the service. The first instance I take is that of a constable with 25 years’ service. After he has been paying in on an average £18 a year, that constable is paid out an amount of £350 and a pension of £6 10s. per month. This is a man with a family, and after a quarter of a century this is what he gets. He has himself paid £450 into the pension fund, and he receives a pension of £6 10s. per month and a cash payment of £350. After 25 years’ service a second class sergeant receives a payment of £431 and a pension of £8 14s. per month. After 28 years’ service a first class sergeant receives £434 and a pension of £7 a month. A first class detective sergeant receives after 29 years a payment of £650 and a pension of £9 per month. That offers no encouragement to people to enter the police service. It also obliges the police to undertake an inferior sort of work in order to be able to exist when they are on pension. A constable may be obliged to work in the liquor trade. Another must be a watchman or lift attendant. They cannot do anything else. If we take the case of a constable who gets a pension of £6 10s. a month — if he has no work and if his wife is old enough for the old age pension they can receive £10 a month old age pension. But he has worked his whole life long, and then he receives a pension of £6 10s. per month. Other married couples who go around receive a combined old age pension of £10 per month. I also wish to urge that larger contributions should be made by the State to augment the widows’ fund. The State makes a small contribution, but the widows are simply unable to live on the small pension that is given to them. Then there is the case of the police orphans. The State does nothing for them. The police do that themselves by way of voluntary contributions and by collecting funds. I think the State ought to contribute to the funds for the orphans that the police themselves build up to ensure their children and widows being cared for when they have gone. Then I come to the question of leave. I would like to point out the police often find it extremely difficult to get their leave. Representations have been made to me that they have been obliged to take annual leave because they need it. But the position is this that frequently it is not given to them on account of the exigencies of the service. If leave cannot be granted to them, other provision should be made so that these men can receive further privileges in respect of the leave that they have been unable to take. Instances occur where year after year police officials are told that they cannot get their leave. And eventually they are unable to get that leave at all. I have the case of one person who found when he retired from the service that 18 months’ leave had accumulated which was due to him. They did not want him to take his leave and he was only paid out for four months. He secrificed 14 months’ leave. This is a man who joined up before 1927. If he had joined up after that he would have lost all his leave and would not even have been entitled to payment for the four months. This is decidedly unfair for the State to tell a policeman that on account of the exigencies of the service he cannot take his leave, and for him to be forced to lose his leave. He must have the right demand his leave and where it is not accorded him he must receive benefits in place of it. This is a matter that must be enquired into because an injustice is being done to these men. [Time limit.]

Reference has been made to the number of cases of housebreaking and assault in Johannesburg and Reef when we consider the number of police who have gone north on military duty we realise that those left behind have done an excellent job of work in keeping the peace as they have done. But there is another body which has helped the police in their arduous work and that is the Civic Guard, and I would like to compliment them on the fine work they have done, both European and non-European. I should like to emphasise that in the cities many key men and men of B and C category who were members of that body have attended to their normal tasks during the day, and then have done their stretch of duty at night with the Civic Guards. Our gratitude and appreciation goes out to these men. I have great pleasure in supporting the proposal made by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) that a conference should be convened by the Minister of representatives of the Civic Guard so that we may be able to show our appreciation of the fine work that has been done by these men and pay them a national tribute. There is another body that has grown up. I am not going to say that they have not done some good work, but I regard them with mixed feelings; I am referring to a body known as the Night Watch Patrol. The members of this body are paid by a private company, and in consideration of a payment of 10s. to 15s. per month the company concerned utilises these men for keeping a watch at night on the property of citizens. It is not that one grumbles at having to pay 10s. per month or 15s. per night for a special watch to be kept on one’s home. The point is that here you have a secondary police force growing up, quite apart from the regular and national police force. There are one or two other points in connection with this private organisation. The members of this organisation doing night patrol duty for them are natives, and it is doubtful whether they can all be vouched for. One knows the difficulty that is being experienced today in securing the services of reliable natives in the towns— employers have to get them from anywhere —and there is a strong feeling that the natives employed by this organisation are by no means hand-picked. The practice is for little metal tabs to be placed on the gates of those premises under observation by members of the patrol—it may be just a coincidence, but it is remarkable how often housebreaking and similar offences are committed in respect of those houses that are not tabbed. A suspicion exists that some members of the paterol are working in collusion with criminals, furnishing them with information as to the movements of the occupants of the untabbed houses. The patrol used to form up in the streets, and have regular drill parades and no doubt will do so again when wartime regulations are withdrawn. To me and to a great many people in Johannesburg this sort of thing does not appear to be quite right, and I trust that the Minister will see his way clear to arrange for something of a more official and permanent character to take the place of this patrol. What I would suggest is when the Civic Guard is disbanded—which will be very soon —now that peace has come to Europe, we should be having great numbers of men back from the North, including a number of coloured men, and natives, I suggest and hope that the Minister will see his way to augment the police force with some of these returned soldiers. It will provide these men with an avenue of employment, and the citizens would have the feeling that instead of an independent and unofficial organisation doing this policing at night we shall be relying on a force that is national and dependable. That would induce the feeling of safety and security that citizens should enjoy. The time for the Minister to take action is now, when the men are on their way back from the North.

A matter I should very much like to mention is one in connection with which there have been many complaints in our country, namely the protection of our police. Today the police have a very difficult task to fulfil, and especially in the recent war period was their task very difficult. Thousands of members of the police force joined the army and were sent North, and the depleted police force left behind had to try and carry out the duties that had multiplied. What do we find now? A little time ago there was a case in Pretoria (North) where a police constable was sent out to arrest a native. He had written authority to do so. When he reached the native’s house he was attacked by eight natives and a native woman. The constable was struck on the head with knobkerries and his head was cut open with an axe. He was absent from duty for six weeks on account of being laid up. The case came before the court, and eight of the nine natives who made the assault were acquitted and one got fourteen days with the alternative, I believe, of a fine of 10s. or £1. But the constable who went to do his duty got six weeks in hospital. If this is the protection our police receive when they go out to do their duty how can you expect the police to perform their duty? The police are sent out under difficult circumstances to discharge their duties, and they have no protection in case of attack. It frequently happens that a police official sent out in this way is brought before officers and punished if there is any indication of an assault on the person who attacked him when he tried to arrest them. That is not proper treatment for the police. It is necessary that the Commissioner of Police and every officer should give members of the force the strongest support so that they can carry out their duties properly. How can you expect new recruits to come into the police force when you have such cases as these? I ask the Minister to go into the matter. The officials should not be afraid to carry out their duties. But today they are afraid to carry out their duties because action can be taken against them when they carry out their duties, and if there is the slightest technical point on which they go wrong. Then there is another little matter. In certain towns, and sometimes even in the cities, houses are maintained by the State where the magistrates can live, but in the case of the District Commandant of the Police no house is provided for him. He may be sent from the Transvaal to one town or another in the Western Province and he has to cover a large area. There is no house accommodation to be got. I know the Minister will say it is impossible to build new houses, but there ought to be a long-term policy for leasing or building houses in order that accommodation may be provided not only for the ordinary policeman but specially for the District Commandant and the higher officers. I want to point out further that in a social sense these men are frequently placed in a difficult position. Take Kimberley, for instance. It is expected of the Chief of Police that he should mix in the highest social circles. These are the De Beers people, who earn thousands of pounds a year. How can a major or even a colonel with a salary of £900 or even £1,000 compete with these people and live on the same basis? Consequently not only should the salaries be placed on a proper basis but provision should be made in every case for house accommodation at a reasonable rental. Then again there is the question of police pension. The Minister may say it is a matter that is being enquired into by the Commission that is investigating the Public Service as a whole, but we cannot get away from it that the position of the police, and especially of widows of members of the police is extremely unsatisfactory. The other day we had the case of the head of the South African Criminal Investigation Department, a man who through overwork had died after 32 years’ faithful service. I knew him well personally, and I know what a difficult time he passed through during the war, that he virtually had to work often 24 hours out of the 24, and his widow does not receive a penny pension. It may be said this is a technical case or an exception, but such cases do occur, and no big private firm in the whole world that had a regard for its reputation and its prestige would permit such a thing to occur in its service. It is necessary that our people who serve the State should be properly compensated and that we should also accord them protection—in this connection I am referring to protection for the widows and children they leave behind. The State ought to give them reasonable protection. Then there is just one other point on which I should like to express my opinion for what it is worth. I want to pay the highest tribute to the present Commissioner of Police who is retiring in the near future. We cannot do otherwise than thank him from all sides of the House for the excellent work that he has done, and that we regret he is not remaining any longer in the service. I know he had an extremely difficult task to fulfil, and I think every praise is due to him. I also realise that his successor will have a difficult task in following him. Then I am sorry that I must return again to a matter in which an unpleasant attack was made on me when I was out, namely, the rebellion at Pietersburg. Police were called in from all sides and consequently I may mention this here, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to let me peruse the documents in the case. I shall appreciate it if he will reply to me on that.

I want to refer to a matter which promises to become a hardy annual. It concerns the formation of a women’s civil police force. I have referred this matter to the Minister on other occasions, and I should like to know whether there is any possibility of utilising women who are now coming out of the army. A fine opportunity is offered to employ their services in the post-war period. We have the opportunity of utilising our women power, women with training and experience and who have served their country with distinction during the war. In the same way that I hope that such a noble and gallant organisation as the South African Women’s Auxiliary Services will be maintained after the war so do I hope that the Minister will see to it that the Women’s Military Police will be used in the social world in the future. I am not going to labour this point because I am fully aware that the Minister will give the matter his consideration, but I should like to be assured by the Minister that he is going to seize this opportunity of using the services of women members of the defence force who will become available on demobilisation.

I represent more policemen than any other member of this House. [Interruptions.] I do not know why there is this mirth when I speak about my constituents. I represent the gold mining industry and I also represent the poorest of the poor; of course it is quite ridiculous. But I do represent more policemen than any other member, and I want once again to appeal to the Minister to make the police force a force which is worth serving in, and by giving its members pay commensurate with the duties they are called upon to carry out. On the estimates, which I assume is a forecast of what the Department is going to do in the following year, I find provision for 100 recruits. I understand, however, that the force is more than 1,000 short of personnel. Whether it is going to be reinforced by returning soldiers I do not know. One assumes, however, that with the growth of our towns and the development of our population the police force should also be developed. I understand on my experience with demobilisation proposals that the police force was one of the avenues of employment which we explored, and that in reply to an invitation for applicants something like nine or 10 individuals wanted to join the police force. That shows conclusively the force does not hold out to the returned soldier any ideas of advantage or of a career. The reason is perfectly obvious. But I must stop for a moment to point out how difficult it is to proceed with the conversations that are going on in the House, and incidentally the Chairman is having a conversation with the Clerk. I am quite sure the Minister of Justice cannot hear what is going on. Every time I rise an attempt is made deliberately by the Opposition to converse so audibly that I am unable to speak. We are expected to absorb a considerable number of men returning from the army, but I find on the estimates we are to have 100 recruits. I do not know whether that only represents the number of recruits to make up wastage, but I am sure it is more than 100. I know it is the general opinion the police force will not attract any considerable number of men returning from the North. Why? One would imagine that men with military service and experience in the North would be attracted to the police service, but the wages paid in the police force are so low that there is no possible attraction. Once again I appeal to the Minister of Justice, who is also responsible for police. Actually, I think that a bad arrangement; I think the police should be divorced from the Minister of Justice, because he has to administer justice in one way through the courts while the police have to carry out a certain amount of duties which, I believe, are not always compatible with the other side. I happen to know that the present Chief Commissioner of Police, when giving evidence before the ad hoc Committee on Demobilisation, was not particularly concerned with increasing the rates of pay for the new entrants into the police force, or for a constable in the early days of his service. Neither was he concerned in abolishing the rule which says that a policeman cannot get married within so many years. Under those conditions it is obvious you are not going to attract returning volunteers from the North, who may have attained fairly high rank. For instance, you are not going to attract air force officers of the rank of captain or major at the rate of wages laid down in this particular schedule. One knows they can be subsidised under the demobilisation proposals. But if a man comes back and is already married and has one or two children he will not be attracted into this kind of service. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the South African Police. I believe they have done a very good job of work during the 5½ years of war. We know a certain number of them had to be summarily dealt with by the Minister of Justice, for what he believed was subversive activities during the war period. A number of those individuals who were originally arrested were subsequently discharged and have now gone back into the police force. I want to say in all seriousness to the Minister, the people of the country generally have not the faith in the police force they should have. We may have made a mistake originally by asking the policemen to wear the reb tabs or not. That is a matter still open to argument, and it has been settled by the abolition of the red flash. But it appears to me there is an element of doubt in the minds of the people as to the police, as to the service we get from them, but definitely as to whether we are getting the right type of man into the force.

At the outset I want to express my appreciation of the praise showered on the police from all sides of the House. I think it is very well deserved,’ and that they have done a very good job of work. May I also say I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) and Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) in what they said about the Commissioner of Police. We are losing a highly efficient and able Commissioner, a man who did exceptionally good work in building up this police force. It is largely due to him we have had this excellent record of service during these trying times. He has not only ably led the police force, but other units, in the North of Africa, where the police contingent greatly distinguished themselves. I am sure I am voicing the feelings on all sides when I say we greatly regret that he is leaving and appreciate the valuable services he has rendered, and this appreciation is shared by all sections. May. I now refer to the question raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), about building up the police? The present position is this. We hope to recruit a large number of men from the army. They will not join at the bottom rung, but in the third, fourth or fifth categories in view of their having had military experience. We trust we shall get a large number of men in this way. The force will be strengthened by the men coming back. The 100 recruits figuring in the estimates is merely a token number. I cannot go into the matter now because it is being considered by the Centlivres Commission. The whole question of pay and pensions will be considered by them. Any amendment in the pensions would entail an amendment in the Pensions Act. But this is being fully considered by the Centlivres Commission, and it is obvious we cannot do anything in that connection at the present time. I may also inform the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray) that apart from Europeans recruited from the army for the police there is also a scheme to enlist a number of men of the Native Military Police; they are partially trained, and we think it will be an excellent thing to enlist a large number of them to do police work in the different parts.

*I think that disposes of most of the questions that have been raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). All the questions he has mentioned are matters for the Centlivres Commission.

Do you also regard the present salary scale as inadequate?

Yes, that is my opinion, and the recommendation will be to increase it. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) also brought up some of the points that come under the Centlivres Commission, and consequently I cannot prematurely go into those points. In regard to his request to peruse the papers, I regret I cannot permit this. The court does not require that any complaints that are made should be communicated to the public; it is privileged; it is absolutely protected. As far as I am concerned I have not had any information at all of any complaint of high treason against the hon. Senator. No papers have been laid before me. It is true I have been informed that certain complaints have been lodged with the Attorney-General and that he is investigating the matter and that there is no case of high treason.

I have mentioned a number of matters here, and the Minister is not taking any notice of me at all. He has simply said: The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) also spoke, and what I said applies also to him.

But the other members raised the same points.

That may be so, after I had spoken, but the Minister makes out that the Opposition are of no account. We were the first to broach the subject. I should like to mention a few other matters which will not necessarily be dealt with by the Centlivres Commission. These are things that will necessarily be arranged by the Department itself. There is in the first place the question of transfers. It appears it is a grievance amongst the police that in connection with transfers from one post to another all the circumstances are not taken into sufficient consideration. In the first place there is housing, and in the second place there is the question of the size of the families of the police concerned, and their general domestic circumstances, as also the question of school facilities for their children, and there frequently occurs a succession of transfers which result in the children having to go to two or three different schools perhaps in one year. Such cases have been brought to my attention where they simply get an order that they are transferred, but these circumstances in regard to schoolchildren, the size of the family and the question of proper housing accommodation are not taken into proper consideration. I have heard of instances where the children have had to attend three different schools in the course of a year. That is not fair. The Department ought to take all these circumstances fully into consideration in connection with the transfer of police officials. There are also other cases which the police object to, where they ask for a transfer on health grounds. The Department admits it is necessary that they should be transferred for health reasons, but because they themselves have asked to be transferred they do not get the necessary costs of transfer and transport. They are told that it is on their own request they are being transferred. That is not right, because it is in the interests of the service that they should be transferred when their health demands it, and to say that they cannot be compensated because they themselves ask for the transfer is decidedly unjust. The matter I mentioned in connection with members of the jury also applies in the case of the police. I refer to the allowances that are paid to the police when they go out on duty. We find that often the police have to remain at a platteland village for a week to be present at the circuit court. Chief constables receive a travelling and subsistence allowance of 15s. a day; sergeants and constables receive only 10s. a day. There is frequently only one hotel or boarding house available in the village. The chief constable, the sergeant and the constable have all to live there together. The hotel tariff is perhaps 15s. a day, and the sergeant and the constable cannot come out on that. Is not that unjust. Even in these difficult times the Government has done nothing to assist members of the police. The sergeant and the constable have to live together in the same boarding house as the chief constable. Their expenses are the same, but the sergeant and the con table have to live there with an allowance of 10s. a day which is less than the hotel tariff. Why the Minister should have to wait with a recommendation from the commission I cannot understand. Then there is the question of periods of rest and long hours of duty. The police feel that every policeman should be able to rest one day in the week, and that happens very seldom. Frequently the police have only one day in the week free, and when they have to work on the seventh day they get no extra pay. Their hours of duty are very long. Here are a few instances regarding which enquiry has been made in the Free State. Here is the case of a detective sergeant. During 1943 over and above his eight hours a day he had to work 272 extra hours during the month of September, 1943. He had to ride 4,000 miles. The men cannot stick it; it is too strenuous. In addition to his eight hours of duty he had done 272 hours of investigation work in one month. In a recent big murder case in the Fauresmith district detectives had to work from 8 o’clock in the morning on Thursday till Saturday afternoon continuously without rest or sleep to follow the spoor of the murderer. They caught the murderer, but just think of it—from Thursday morning to 8 o’clock on Saturady morning they were on the spoor of the murderer without sleep or rest. In such a case the State expects that the police should catch the criminal. But they should receive compensation for the time that they serve. Those extra hours that they work ought to have been given to them in the form of extra rest periods, but that did not occur. As soon as the investigation is over the men must be available for further duty. Then there is another matter. In addition to the eight hours duty the police have to participate in exhibitions and in sporting events for which they get no extra payment. It works out that a policeman or a detective may work the whole day and in the evening he goes off duty, but at night he has to respond to an urgent call. He must get out of his bed and he may have to work until 5 or 6 o’clock in the morning, and at 8 o’clock he must again be at work. The fact that he has to get up at night and work is not taken into consideration. I do not want the police to be treated as if they were babies and not have to work overtime. But the position is serious, and when they do this hard exhausting work over and above their normal working hours they ought to be compensated. Then there is another matter on which the police feel very deeply, and that is that although they are not prevented from joining a police union or association it iá absolutely discouraged by the Chief of the Police or by the Department. They do not want the police to form a union. In the public service the public servants have an association that looks after their interests. I am informed that the police are not encouraged to join a union that could act for them and lay their grievances before the Department. I want to assert that the commissioner ought to encourage the police to establish their union which could foster their interests and lay their grievances and difficulties before the commission. Why should they not be granted the right to have such an association. Today there is no such organisation. A policeman is scared to submit his grievances to’ the chief of his own bat, but if he had a union that could act on his behalf he would be in a position to lay his grievances before the chief through his union. We expect that the Minister will rise and say that he will allow the police to form their union so that it may look after their interests.

I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister that I think would relive the position in some of the stock farming areas. This question of stock theft has given the agricultural unions a great deal of trouble for many years. Even before the war broke out the agricultural unions tried to persuade the Minister to institute a system of compulsory registration of brands and earmarking of stock, and I would suggest to the Minister that he might try to arrange a conference with the representatives of the agricultural unions in order to arrive at the best method of giving effect to this request. In my part of the country we have had a lot of complaints of stock theft during the last two or three years. In one part of the district it has got so bad that the farmers say it is no good reporting cases of stock theft to the police. They say they are losing stock regularly, and they say it is no longer worth while reporting cases of stock theft. Another point that I think could be taken up and which will lead to an improvement is the use of more police dogs. The police dogs have an excellent preventive effect in rural areas. The natives are really afraid of police dogs. They believe that they really find the culprit, and if greater use could be made of police dogs, I think it would be of great assistance.

I should like to say a few words on paragraph (n)—Medical services. We have heard a great deal about housing, inadequate leave, and that the police work so much and are paid so little and so forth. In those matters I am not an authority, but I would like to say a few words in connection with medical services. If a policeman is sick and he goes to his ordinary general practitioner it may be necessary that his blood should be analysed by a pathologist, and the poor policeman cannot afford it. The police officials are not treated in this way. The railway official goes annually to his general practitioner who may send him to a pathologist for the analysis of his blood or for X-ray. This is usually paid by the Railway Sick Fund, but the police official does not obtain the services of the consulting specialist or the doctor. I have repeatedly written to the Secretary for Public Health, and Justice, and also to the Minister and to the Minister’s private secretary. Year after year the promise is made that the matter will be rectified and that the police officer will receive permission to visit a consulting pathologist or doctor, but as matters stand bearing in mind the low scale of salaries the poor policeman cannot afford it. He is sent by his doctor but he is not allowed to spend more than £2 when he visits a consulting pathologist or doctor. I would like to see the police in this connection put on an equal footing with railwaymen. In my opinion the police are being unjustly treated, and I hope the Minister will investigate the matter.

There are two matters that I want to deal with very shortly. In the first place I want to say a word about the policeman’s uniform. We all have experience of seeing a policeman on a very hot summer’s day wearing a uniform of heavy serge, and I think the point must be conceded that a man unsuitably attired cannot be expected to do his work properly. Would it not be possible to have the policemen supplied during the warm months with a light khaki uniform? Secondly, the Minister will know that in past Sessions, I have raised the question of inadequate police at Umlazi. Umlazi is not only, as the House knows, an important constituency, but it is a very widespread constituency. The reason offered during the war years, has of course been the one which one appreciates, namely the fact that men in the force have been away on active service. I want to ask the hon. Minister that when the manpower in the police is up to normal strength, he will not be content to restore the police force to what it was before the war, because even in those days, it was inadequate. Part of the constituency falls within the boundaries of the city of Durban. It may be assumed that the police force from Durban can control that part of the area, but in point of fact, that is not so, and even those areas which come wihin the city boundaries are sparsely populated and very scattered, and even in the pre-war days there was inadequate police service. There is scarcely a ratepayers’ meeting that has been held which has not passed a resolution drawing attention to this fact arising out of the robberies and thefts in those parts, and today I speak rather feelingly when I mention the question of theft. I do not know whether the Minister knows what it is for a member of Parliament to do his duty without clothes, because they have been stolen.

I should like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister. I wish to refer to the need for a police van at Hobhouse. The police at Hobhouse are experiencing difficulty, because they have only a motorcycle which is virtually useless at night. A native can hear the motorcycle coming along from a considerable distance and he merely slinks away. We experience a lot of trouble with drinking parties at night but the police are practically powerless. The natives hear the motorcycle coming from a great distance and then they hide the beer. I hope that the Minister will arrange for us to have a police van; other places have them. Then we should like to have a police station built there.

The hon. member must discuss that under the Loan Estimates.

I am only referring to the idea ….

The hon. member can also discuss the idea under the Loan Estimates.

I only wish to bring it to the notice of the Minister because the vote in the Loan Estimates ….

The hon. member can also do that under the vote of the Loan Estimates.

My difficulty is that it does not appear under that vote either, and consequently you will also rule me out of order there. I am not dealing here with the Minister of Public Works but with the Minister of Justice. May I refer you to Vote No. 40, item U, “Purchase of material” for the erection of buildings, cells, etc.? I am bringing that up under the vote. The Minister must bear in mind that the building is in such a state that it has been abandoned by the police. The police are working now in a leased building, which eventually will cost the State a great deal more, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give his attention to the matter.

I would like now that the war is over to pay a tribute as a humble and loyal citizen of this country to the great service which the police force has rendered to this country in the course of their ordinary duties and in the course of their duties as volunteer soldiers. It is an established fact and one which I think South Africa will never forget that in the dark days when volunteers were called for, 90 per cent. of the South African police force volunteered for active military service and of the 90 per cent. who volunteered 2,000 stalwart men were selected to go on service with our armed forces, and I submit to you, Sir, and to this House that these men have rendered to South Africa a great and glorious service and one which we and the country should never forget. We must remember Bardia, Halfaya and Solium, and the men who under the gallant leadership of Major-General De Villiers, fought those great fights which will go down in history, when the story of this war is told. And I would like also to pay a tribute to Major-General Klopper, who has been so much maligned throughout South Africa by ill-informed people and those who talk without thinking. In my opinion Gen. Klopper will go down in history unblemished and untarnished in his military reputation by what happened at Tobruk. His men speak with gratitude and awe of the quality of leadership he displayed after he took over command from Gen. De Villiers. Those men will shortly come back to South Africa and I think we are all agreed that they will make still better policemen for the fact that they have been on active service and have seen other parts of the world, and I hope in paying tribute to them their example will be followed by their comrades who were not so fortunate as to be selected for active service and that the high standard of efficiency of the police force will be maintained in the years ahead. Of the 2,000 men who volunteered for active service, the Sixth South African Brigade was formed and in addition to that there was a motorcycle machine gun battalion which did gallant and valuable work in the cause. The number of decorations earned by those men compares favourably with the honours earned in any other brigade. One was awarded the C.B. There were several D.S.O.’s, Military Crosses, D.C.M.’s and M.M.’s and it gives me very great pleasure at the close of this vote to pay a warm tribute to that force and to congratulate them upon carrying out their task so magnificently, as well as to their colleagues who stayed behind maintaining law and order in this country in spite of all the difficulties with which they have had to contend.

I should like to make my contribution to the tribute that has been paid here to the police for the good work they have done during a difficult period and which they are still doing. In the police force we have always an efficient and capable organisation and we wish to express our appreciation for the fine services they have rendered. I only wish to add that we are fortunate in having the best of them in our constituency. I want to express my appreciation of the good services the police have rendered in my constituency. We are highly satisfied with them and we are very proud of them. But as the police have given such yeomen service, especially during the war years, I hope that the commission now sitting will see that justice is done to these men in so far as their salary scales are concerned. I hope that those services will be recognised in a tangible manner by the Department, and that their conditions of service will be improved. I have one small matter in mind, a circular letter from the Treasury, No. 11 of 1937. I refer to Paragraph 3 (1) and (2). From this it appears that gratuities are not paid to officials who joined after 1st January, 1927. They cannot participate in those privileges. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot be so obliging as to take this matter into consideration. Possibly it is merely a ruling by the Treasury. I read the following from the circular—

Paragraph (2) is the same, but it has a much wider application. We should like to see that the officials who joined after the 1st January, 1927—and these are principally the men who have fought in the war—should also participate in this benefit. It will not involve much expense; it is not a very big matter for the Department, but it is important to the officials concerned, especially as their salaries are so exceptionally low; and as these gratuities are relatively small we should like a concession to be made to these men. They are mainly men who have fought in this war, and we ask that they too should get the gratuities. Then I want to add my plea to those that have already been made, that the police officials should be allowed, even if it is under restricted conditions, to establish their union, so that that union can function as the mouthpiece of the police officials in the fostering of their interests, and so that the Minister will know that if the organisation speaks he is hearing the voice of the whole police force. Who can now speak on their behalf? The one asks this and the other asks that, and there is no certainty with him or with his department or with the Chief of the Police as to what the police-officials want. I do not say that they should have unlimited freedom to organise themselves into a staff association. I think that under certain restricted conditions they should be allowed to organise themselves so that they can speak with one voice in regard to the matter of their conditions of service. Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister what the policy of the Government is in respect of the police service in South-West Africa that has been taken over by the Union under an Act passed by this House. I previously put this question, and the answer was that it was a matter that would have to stand over until after the war. The war is now over and I assume that the Government has a defined policy on the subject. Under the constitution of South-West Africa the police fall under the administration of South-West Africa. But the Union Government has taken them over. It is not working as smoothly as it was originally intended, and I should like to know the policy of the Government in connection with this matter, whether it is its intention to place the police force of South-West Africa again under the authority of the Legislative Council and the Administrator of South-West Africa. I trust the Minister and the Government will treat the police very generously in regard to the improvement of their conditions of service. I trust that the Centlivres Commission will place the force once and for all on a sound basis, and that the Government will accept those proposals so that it will not be necessary for us to plead so repeatedly for an improvement of these conditions of service. I want to express my appreciation to the Minister of Justice for the improvement of the conditions of service of those members of the police who have to be in attendance at Parliament. We brought this under the notice of the Minister last year as we had many complaints. Many of the conditions are improved, and we want to express our gratitude. We felt very strongly on the matter, and although everything is not being conceded we are grateful for such concessions as have been made.

I do not think the Minister is obliged to hold over his new policy in connection with the police entirely until the Centlivres Commission has reported. Does the Minister wish to tell us that they are also going to enquire into the grievances as well as the grievances that exist today? The commission is doing this in connection with the other officials, but I doubt whether it will concern itself with the grienvances the police had in the past. In view of the fact that the police have had no organisation to speak for them we can understand that there must be a thousand and one grievances that will never be mentioned. Unless the Minister gives me a definite assurance that this will be the case I gravely doubt whether the grievances the police have will be investigated by this commission. Does the Minister propose to wait until this commission has made its recommendations? I think the time has arrived for the Minister to say he is going to make the service so attractive that he will have the right type of man. Let us remember it is not only a question of low salaries that makes the service unattractive. When a man enters that service he is virtually tied down like a soldier for the rest of his life. He is no longer a free citizen. He has to work long hours and there are many privileges that man does not possess. He has thrown everything on to the altar and his reward is a meagre salary. As an individual he is pinned down in the interests of the security of the State, and that being the case we must see to it that this man and his family are properly looked after. That is not the case with the police today. There are also other grievances regarding which I am certain this commission of enquiry will make no investigation. There is the question of promotions which are not always carried out with scriptural conscientiousness, neither in the past nor at the present time. For that reason I also regard it as desirable that the police should have their own organisation just like other public servants. As we have such a large body it is obvious that grievances must arise at times. The Minister may now say that the members of the police can now see their immediate chief. We know that that way of settling difficulties is not effective. It really suppresses grievances, but to suppress grievances does not signify they are going to be eliminated. The present system is not one to secure satisfaction, and grievances pile up. The result is that before a person enters the police service he tries a hundred and one other jobs. I say consequently that the time has arrived, as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has already stated, to make the service attractive. The position is that as the service stands at present we cannot expect soldiers to offer themselves for service in the police force in any large numbers. In the first place the commencing salary is £150. Suppose now that the man, as is the case, receives recognition for his military service. Even though he gets five years’ recognition he will only receive a meagre salary, and he will first explore other channels before he resorts to the police. That is the position. We must make the service attractive to the soldier if we expect him to enter it. If I am not mistaken, in 1934-’35 we had between 15,000 and 16,000 men in the police force; now we have 11,000. The Minister has told us that he expects 2,000 additional men will come in. Well, our force will then have a strength lower than it was in 1934-’35. If we add these 2,000 then we have a strength of 13,000 including the officers, and how 13,000 police can control 12 000,000 people I cannot understand. I think the staff is hopelessly small, having regard to our population of 12,000,000. This brings us again to the point that the service must be made attractive so that young fellows can see their way clear to joining. Even suppose the Minister gets 2,000 men from the army there will still be a shortage, and I doubt whether he will be able to get them. The young men will first go to the mines and try to get other work before they offer themselves for the police service. Our recruits are now mostly matriculated and there are many other positions open to them with a higher commencing salary. So that we cannot count on getting many of the young men. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) keeps trying to remind me that I should stop talking because it is so late. I cannot help it if he is not interested in this matter. It is an important matter for the country. I say it is time to place the police force on a sound basis, especially with an eye to the time when potential difficulties in the country may come to a head. We cannot hope to maintain law and order with a handful of men when we have to contend with these difficulties. Then we come to another problem. The Minister knows it is a fact that a large number of men in the police force would at present like to resign for the simple reason that they can get attractive positions outside the police service. The Minister must not be surprised if he is so overwhelmed with applications to resign that next year he will be quite desperate, and unless he makes the service attractive for men in the service, and also for recruits, he will experience difficulty in maintaining the force at its proper strength. We frequently hear the Minister speaking about all these crimes, theft and so forth. He says that he is sometimes at his wits’ end because of lack of staff. I say with all respect that the Minister will not be able to obtain a staff if he does not improve the conditions of service for the police. The Minister has not stated that he is going to do this. ‘The Minister has been trying to appease us by being very benignant, but we do not want that. We want a factual statement that he is going to make the police service more attractive. [Time limit.]

I understand that during war-time, or when there is a disturbance of the peace, the privilege granted during normal times of allowing the police to purchase their discharge from the force is suspended. If that is so, and as the war is now over, may I ask the Minister seriously to consider withdrawing that embargo. Rightly or wrongly there are members of the force who feel that they have not had a square deal, and when individuals in any service feel dissatisfied they are of no use to the service, and I feel that it is in the interests of the service for the Minister seriously to consider allowing members, who are disgruntled, the privilege of withdrawing from the force. I do feel that the war having now come to an end, and with so many ex-volunteers to be placed in suitable employment, the Minister will not have much difficulty in getting individuals to join the force who would be of greater value to the force than those who are dissatisfied today, and want to resign. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to allowing disgruntled members to purchase their discharge.

I know it is unpopular to bring up a matter at this time of the night, but in any case whether it is popular or not a man must do his duty, and I must bring a matter of the greatest importance to the notice of the Minister. I have already mentioned it on several occasions and the necessity for it has been repeatedly stated, but it is necessary to do it again. We have a long report in connection with the police post at Munnik. This is an enterprising area in the Northern Transvaal, and some of these enterprising farmers complain that farming is made impossible for them. They cannot continue without police protection. I have before me an English report that appears in the local newspaper; it is in English, and to save time I shall read it out as it appears here—

There you have the position. These are progressive farmers who have fenced their farms and divided them into paddocks, and they are now obliged to place their cattle in the kraal at night, otherwise the animals are stolen. Fortunately the war is now over and we know that there is no further reason why we should not have a police post there. The farmers have bought the land and they have bought the building and there is also a telephone. All that is lacking is the police and I hone the Minister will make the police available, because this is of the utmost importance for the area. If this is not done it will be made impossible for these people to continue with their farming. Then there is another matter I want to bring up on behalf of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). (The hon. member unfortunately is ill; he underwent a serious operation.) ’He handed the following telegram to me; he assures me it is a serious matter and he has asked me to bring it to the notice of the Minister. The telegram is from Schoeman at Eliasdale—

This is an area that borders on the native area, and it is impossible for these people to continue unless the police camp that is now threatened with being closed down is continued. I do not expect the Minister to reply immediately to these two points. I shall be satisfied if he sends a reply through the Commissioner of Police, who, I am glad to see, has been present here throughout. I should also like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the police for the outstanding way in which they have done their work in difficult circumstances during the past year.

I shall be very brief. The reply given by the Minister is probably also the reply that he will give when these matters are brought up next year. His reply to all the grievances will be that there is a commission of enquiry. I want to speak about a matter that apparently will not enjoy the attention of the commission of enquiry, namely the position of the police already on pension. I have for several successive years brought to the notice of the Minister the poor position police pensioners are in. Last year I brought to his notice that a police official at Maclear who had 25 years’ service to his credit and who has a family of nine children, received on his retirement the princely pension of £6 10s. a month. We want our police to be reliable. How in heaven’s name can a man be reliable if after a period of service of 25 years he has to come out on a pension of £6 10s. a month. I feel that these pensions will not be investigated by the commission. It is an intolerable position. We are continually receiving letters, and I get them from my constituency as well, and I shall be glad if the Minister will go into the position. Then there is another matter, and that is that according to my information certain classes of police are obliged on the day then join to say in what way they wish to draw their pension eventually—whether they want so much in cash and so much a month in pension. It is impossible for a person to say in advance what the circumstances are going to be after 25 or 30 years, and how he wishes to draw his pension. I hope my information is wrong, but it is my information and I should like the Minister to go into this matter. Then just a last point. I have in mind the policeman who lost his life through a skolly stabbing him with a knife.

You have spoken enough.

The members on the other side apparently want to go home now. I want to give them a friendly warning. If they go on like that then unless they apply the guillotine we will keep them here till midnight.

Are you not concerned about the messengers?

*Mr. BOLTMAN; That hon. member should leave the messengers alone. He did not worry about them when we complained about their salaries, and now he wants to curry favour with them. But I will leave those members in the kitchen to themselves. I want to return to the Minister. This policeman was stabbed with a knife. Someone mentioned this yesterday, and the Minister said that he would have the matter investigated. But as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said, the Minister is so kindly and he handles the things so nicely that one presently forgets that this man was stabbed to death. Courtesy does not help now. I really want to ask the Minister if he does not think it is necessary to prevent skollies carrying knives. Why do they want to carry knives here in Cape Town? If a farmer carries a clasp knife on his farm one can understand why he cannot do without it. But why should the coloured people here in Cape Town carry dangerous weapons. It is only to seek trouble. The Minister knows how difficult it is for the police to us their weapons. They may only use them if they think they are going to lose their lives, only when it is absolutely necessary. The Minister should make a clear statement that he is going to take strong action against the users of knives, or he must prevent them carrying knives. I cannot for a moment see why the Minister cannot prevent them carrying weapons.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) mentioned the question of transfers. We ourselves pay the man’s expenses, but he must make provision for his family. We endeavour to meet him as far as the school children are concerned. Everything is taken into consideration to assist these people. In regard to the subsistence allowance this is something that is fixed by the Public Service Commission. I want to give the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) the reply that the Centlivres Commission will go into all the different aspects of the problem.

Can the police give evidence?

Yes. This is also another point that has been mentioned. They can give evidence jointly and severally. In the cities they mainly give evidence jointly, and at other places individually. The commission was specially appointed to go into these matters, and it is obvious that I cannot anticipate the findings of the commission. If all the departments did this nothing would eventuate from the work of the commission, but if we want to do something and if we have the recommendations of the commission in that direction, we shall be on much stronger ground.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann) about women police, I can tell him that the matter is being discussed. In answer to the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) I have to say that there is a great shortage of transport at the present moment. The matters raised by the hon. members for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), and Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) will all be gone into.

*I shall go into the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux). That also applies to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) and the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has mentioned an important matter. We are at present making an investigation into the carrying of dangerous weapons. The hon. member will realise it is very difficult to lay down that no one may carry a knife. It will be difficult to apply that. That hon. member will realise what is implied in taking such a course.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) for what he said in connection with the police here.

*Arming them is a difficult matter. In any case I shall investigate the matter again, but I think it can be done better under another system under which we shall be able to put the police in a position to take strong action. It is absolutely certain that the lives of the police must be protected against attacks and that we should look after their welfare. We cannot tolerate our police being attacked.

It is occuring repeatedly.

Today we still have the emergency regulations. They fall under the military and imprisonment must be imposed in case of assault. But the point that has been brought up is of great importance. If the police are attacked time after time with knives and such things the position becomes intolerable, because they have to defend themselves. We must try as far as possible to prevent this, but it is a difficult matter and I shall investigate it again.

I put a question to you in connection with pensioners.

I shall investigate whether this too cannot be investigated by the Centlivres Commission.

I put a question to you in connection with the institution of a police union.

They can appear before the commissioner individually and collectively.

The question is whether you wish to encourage the institution of such a police union, so that they can function as a body.

The matter has never been brought before me, but I know that they can place any grievance before the commissioner either individually or collectively. At the sitting of the commission they submitted their grievances collectively.

That is before the commission. But as Minister do you encourage the institution of a police union or not?

To tell the truth, the question of the institution of such a union has never been laid before me. I undertake to investigate it and perhaps later in the Session I shall give a definite reply. But I can give the assurance that they are permitted to lay their grievances or objections collectively before the commissioner.

What about the South-West police?

You were not present when I replied. My answer was that this must wait until after the war, that is to say until we know exactly what the status of South-West will be. It does not assist to take steps now if the status in South-West is going to be altered tomorrow.

What about the nine natives who attacked the constable? Will you give instructions that stronger measures must be taken in such cases to protect the police?

I have stated that the police must be protected. It is the duty of the State.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 41—“Native Affairs”, £2,175,000.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 26th May.