I lay upon the Table schedule of decreases in customs duty which it is proposed to embody in the Bill to be introduced during the present session of Parliament.

During the budget debate I indicated the proposed increases, but there are a number of decreases which will only come up when the Bill is introduced and, for the information of hon. members, I lay on the Table particulars of these decreases.

I would like to ask the Minister of Defence when he is going to lay on the Table the report of the Board of Trade and Industries on the sugar business.

My colleague the Minister of Mines and Industries, as the hon. member is aware, has now returned. I cannot give the hon. member an answer to his question, but I will mention the matter to my colleague.

We have already got the English copy and we are now busy with the translation. As soon as that is finished, the report will be laid on the Table.

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

seconded. Agreed to.

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

seconded.

Agreed to.

Petition referred to the Government for consideration.

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

seconded.

Agreed to.

Petition referred to the Government for consideration.

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

seconded.

Agreed to.

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

seconded.

Agreed to.

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

I beg to move notice of motion No. 10 standing in my name. The hon. member, whose absence we all deplore, has recently undergone a serious operation, and is now recovering from the effects of it. I understand the operation has been quite successful. During his period of convalescence, he will be unable to attend the sittings of this House during the present session.

I would like to second the motion. I have seen the hon. member, and I can assure the House that he is even now in a very precarious state of health, and quite unable to resume his duties in the House. The House will be doing not only the right thing, but a graceful thing, in passing this motion unanimously.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the Petition [No. 547—’25] was upon the Table.

I move—

The petition of Mr. Cook which is concerned with this motion sets forth very briefly the circumstances under which he asks Parliament to grant him a select committee of enquiry into the circumstances of his case. That is all the notice of motion asks for, and I do hope that one of the judicial functions of Parliament will be given effect to in this matter, because I think that one of the reasons, if I may say so, in certain parts of the world why parliaments are not so popular as they were is that parliaments have not been as ready as they used to be to consider grievances brought to their notice because they are of long standing or take some time to go into. But when Parliament fails to act as the highest judicial tribunal and shuts its door to those who have grievances for enquiry, from that day its unpopularity will begin, and the public are not only concerned with Parliament’s deliberative and legislative efforts, but they should know that there is one tribunal which in the last resort should be able to enquire into any grievances that should be attended to. The principal grievance that is referred to in this motion is one of historical interest. What are called concessions in the petition are not concessions in the ordinary course, but matters of solemn contract for which the petitioner paid large sums of money. They are all in the nature of very onerous contracts for which very large sums of money were paid. Various contracts and leases are set out in the petition. Firstly, in 1889 he obtained from Sigcau, then paramount chief of Pondoland, a concession for working and trading in minerals, metals and precious stones—a ’99 years’ lease at an annual rental of £900, and on the day that the concession was signed £2,100 was paid in cash for that particular right.

The next one was granted on the 24th of October, 1890, and referred to a concession or lease to construct, equip and maintain a railway starting from Port St. John’s and to go to the boundary of the colony of the Cape or of Natal. It was also for 99 years, an annua! rental of £900 was to be paid, and £1,720 was paid in cash. The next one was a lease of 3,000 Cape morgen in Eastern Pondoland suitable for Townships. This is also for 99 years, and the annual rental was £6, and £50 was paid in cash, the last one was in June, 1893, for 160 square miles in Eastern Pondoland, for which £2,200 was paid in cash and the annual rental with the right of renewal was £400. The lease also being for 99 years, the rights being to trade, buy, sell or barter and to cut and export timber. After the granting of these concessions by the chief, Pondoland, as we know, was annexed, first by the Imperial Government, and later on became a part of the old Cape Colony. These concessions were not given effect to, with the result that certain litigation took place. The case Cook Brothers v. The Colonial Government will be found reported in Twelve, Supreme Court Reports, page 86. It was held by the courts that there was no provision in the Act of Annexation by which a declaration of rights could be obtained against the Crown. It was a purely technical matter, and these rights have invariably been recognized by international law and when they are properly obtained legal rights and bona fide business agreements, when, a new government annexes a country, it has been the invariable practice for the new Government to assume the liabilities of the old. Owing to a technical flaw in the Act of Annexation, the courts held that legally they could not give Cook Bros, any redress. But I would like to quote from the judgments because although the courts put that point of law, they favourably recommended the case to the consideration of Parliament. On page 95 the late Chief Justice said—

The judgment further stated that—

The court stated that the action was not an unreasonable one and it was in the public interest that the question should have been decided, and although judgment went against the plaintiffs, the court ordered each party to pay their own costs. That judgment was endorsed by Justices Buchanan and Upington. The matter eventually went before the Privy Council and Lord Halsbury, in delivering judgment, said that their lordships did not differ from the previous finding in fact; that at the time Sigcau executed the instrument in question, he was the paramount chief, and that he knew quite well that he was giving the rights which the instrument purported to convey. Their lordships considered that the appellants had strong claims for consideration of the Government and Parliament of the country Mr. Cook conducted various negotiations conducted with Lord de Villiers, Sir Robert Solomon and Gen. Botha, and I think he convinced all of them of the justice of his claim. Unfortunately, the outbreak of the war and the sudden death of Gen. Botha prevented further action being taken. I mention these facts because it might be suggested that a long time has elapsed, although I am sure no one is going to say that an injustice ceases to be one because a long time elapses. They spent on this venture £42,250, and I think the House will see that they are entitled to some consideration. When annexation took place, Lord Loch, then High Commissioner, allowed the working of these concessions to go on. They worked the concessions for seven months, and were then in very full anticipation of being allowed to continue, otherwise they would not have continued to spend money in the anticipation that these concessions would be recognized. The jurisdiction was transferred to the Colonial Government on the 25th September, 1894, and the Colonial Government did not recognize these rights, and that is the position in which Mr. Cook finds himself, I would point out to hon.members that only to-day a motion was referred to the Government for consideration, referring to a matter going back to 1900, and I am glad to say that we have recently put right many grievances to the oudstryders of the Transvaal going back to the days of the Boer war, and have also dealt with a number of ancient wrongs. I do not think, therefore, that the argument that some time has elapsed is a valid one against the granting of this motion. Some misapprehension has arisen as to whether Cooks still own these concessions, but the arrangements for another company in London to put in money was cancelled. I say this to remove any misconception that might arise. In other years there have been, in regard to Pondoland, investigations in the Cape Parliament, but not in regard to these concessions, apparently because they amounted to so very much more in substance than others. I cannot explain why no attempt has been made to do anything for Cook Brothers. A select committee of 1906, on Pondoland grants, recognized several petitions, and in 1907 another committee was appointed which endorsed the previous committee’s recommendations ; but apparently they did not deal with the case of Cook Brothers. They only dealt with the smaller claims. Of course, it may be said that you cannot deal with this matter adequately now, but that is a matter for the select committee, and it may be that some other form of recommendation might be made instead of a money grant, such as the right of cultivation of this land, of which they have proved the capacity for growing cotton, silk, fibre, etc., and there might be the possibility of establishing oil and soap works. It would solve some of our labour difficulties if the natives of that country could be taught by engaging in some industry in their own country how to raise themselves in the scale of civilization. But that is a matter for the select committee. This country owes a deep debt of gratitude to Cook Brothers, because it was they who arranged for the acceptance, by Sigcau and his officers, of the peaceful settlement of annexation. Cook obtained the documents for annexation from Sigcau, and Lord Loch, the then Governor, expressed his thanks for this, and it is as a result, largely of the work of Cook Brothers, that instead of there being anything in the nature of bloodshed or trouble the annexation was entirely peaceful, because of their influence with the chief, and for that they obtained absolutely nothing, and are now in the position that concessions honourably obtained for which they paid considerable sums, have not been recognized. When Cook Brothers went to Pondoland the country was entirely independent, and they went on their own and spent a large sum of money, no doubt in the spirit of the old pioneers. They obtained the concessions and I see no reason why they should be treated differently from other persons who have obtained concessions. At the end of 1893 they had guaranteed to them in London the sum of no less than £1,250,000 with which to exploit the concessions. I would like to quote the news papers to show how this matter was viewed a the time legal proceedings were taken. The “Cape Times” remarked that the court gave them a certificate of good faith and honesty, and added that Cook Brothers held a distinguished position in the company of adventurers by reason of their conspicuous fairness. Having pointed out that the British South Africa Company was built on similar concessions, the “Cape Times” added—

After the Privy Council judgment the London “Times” stated that the judgment left a substantial piece of injustice unrectified. It is clear that the Cook concessions were interpreted, explained and witnessed, and they all purported to be for Sigcau and his successors in office and the Government were the legal successors. The Swaziland concessionaires were treated very differently, and whenever a concession had been properly obtained recognition was given by the specially appointed court in nearly every case. One can see no reason why there should be differential treatment in the case of Cook Brothers. The only reason they failed in their action was because the law made no provision for compensation. They had no right to sue the Government—for that reason they failed, and for that reason they come to Parliament and ask for an enquiry. Should the recommendation of the select committee involve expenditure, the Government would not thereby be bound, so the Government need not fear being compelled to take any particular action by agreeing to the appointment of a select committee. It is only fair that Cook Brothers should have a chance of having their case thoroughly enquired into. I hope that the motion will be agreed to, and that this case, which should have been enquired into long ago, will now be enquired into, so that some justice may be done to those who, at any rate, have made out a prima facie claim.

I second. I have read the documents available in connection with this petition, and although, in a sense, it is a voice out of the past, I feel perfectly sure that the sense of rightness of this Assembly will accede to the request for an enquiry into this case. What if the case is 37 years old, reasons have been assigned for the delay. I cannot and will not believe that the House will do otherwise than acquiesce in the petition put forward by J. C. Cook.

The mover is correct in saying that even if a select committee reported in favour of the views of the applicant, the Government would still be in a position to refrain from obtaining the necessary authority to introduce legislation in the matter, but, in spite of that, I think it is necessary for the Government, in a case of this kind, to take up a clear attitude, and their clear attitude is that they are not prepared to consider a claim which is made after this length of time, and it would, therefore, be futile for the Government to agree to the appointment of a select committee. The annexation of Pondoland took place in September. 1894, whilst the concession was granted in 1889. Shortly after the cession of Pondoland to the Colonial Government took place, this action was brought by Cook brothers, and in that action Cook brothers failed, because the rights to the cession were not retained as far as the cession of the territory was concerned, and the Cape Government at no time recognized those rights. After all, the Cape Government was the government that should have dealt with the matter in 1894, and it did deal with it, as I shall show. I am not going on the point of the matter being so old, although that is a point which the House could usefully consider, and it might be said that we are not here as knights-errant to rectify an injustice that occurred 37 years ago. No steps were taken by Cook brothers to test the question in the House. Judgments were given, the judgments went to appeal, and the appeal was dismissed, and after the appeal had been dismissed steps were taken to bring the matter before the Cape Government. Before that, certain petitions were sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and referred to the Governor of the Cape Colony in 1800, upon which the reports were obtained of Sir Walter Stanford and others. As far as Sigcau was concerned, he had on previous occasions revoked grants that he had given. The points made in the report given by Sir Walter Stanford are these, that Cook brothers knew perfectly well how slight and how slender their concession was, because they had themselves obtained a revocation of previous concessions granted to others. The matter did not cease there. In 1903 Cook brothers again addressed the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the communication being forwarded to the Cape Government. These representations were considered by the Cape Government in 1904, and that Government informed the Governor that they were of opinion that no good purpose would be served by discussing the merits or soundness of the Cook case. The Cape Government decided in 1901, and again in 1904, to reject any claim for a compassionate allowance by Messrs. Cook, as far as this matter was concerned, after considering the extra-legal position in regard to the case. My submission is very strong that where the Cape Government at that stage arrived at a conclusion 6 or 7 years after the matter had happened, it was in exactly the same position, one can say, as a judgment of the court taking place at that stage, and that it is not right that the matter should be reopened. Up to the time of Union, and, in fact, up to the last couple of years, no endeavour was made at any time by Cook brothers to come to this House. They dealt in the first place with the Secretary of State and Imperial Ministers, and later on with the Cape Government. Never at any stage did they present a petition to this House. In 1914 they approached Sir David Graaff in London, who was acting as High Commissioner. In 1921 they approached Sir Edgar Walton, and were informed that any representation would have to be transmitted to the Union Government. In 1921, Captain Yardley, who described himself as the agent of Cook brothers, approached H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, and the petition was again referred to the Union Government, and the same reply given. There it is stated—

We had decisions arrived at by the Cape Government, and here is a decision arrived at by the Union Government in 1921. Then we find the Anglo-Ultramarine Trading Company, of London, entering into the matter in 1922. That company said that it had a cession from Cook brothers. The mover of this motion says that that cession has been cancelled, that the company no longer has any rights, and that those rights have re-vested in Cook brothers. This same company is threatening an action against the Government. I certainly would await their action with very great pleasure, because I do not think, even if they have a cession, that they have much chance of succeeding with this petition of right which they are going to bring against the Government, in 1922 Mr. Cook saw the Secretary for Native Affairs in Cape Town, and informed him that a petition to Parliament would, he feared, be a forlorn hope. It seems that the company contemplated a settlement in Pondoland at one time. It is not a question of this matter not having been decided. In the first place, I venture to submit to this House that there is no question whatever of any legal rights so far as Cook brothers are concerned. They were finally disposed of by the Privy Council in 1899. As far as Pondo recognition is concerned, that was decided by the Cape Government in 1900 and 1904. As far as the Union Government were concerned, they gave notice in 1921, through the Secretary for Native Affairs, that they are not going to do anything. The matter has been decided in the first place on the legal aspect, and it has been decided on the moral aspect by at least two governments, the Cape Government and the Union Government. Under the circumstances. I think the present Government would be stultifying itself if it entirely departed from the conclusions that have been adopted in the past, and reopened a matter which is as stale as this is, after it has been disposed of on various occasions. I say there can be no question now of reopening it. We cannot take up the position that the Governments which enquired into the matter on these occasions did not enquire into the whole of the case, and I submit that after this length of time it would be impossible and futile to reopen the matter. On the merits of the case, it seems to me where the position is taken no by the present applicant, that he procured cancellation of the previous concession, he is not basing his claim very strictly on moral grounds. That is Sir William Stanford, who went into the matter very fully, and who speaks about concurring with the views of Sir Henry Elliot and Mr. Scott. We know what these concessions have been in the past, and the way in which they have been obtained, and I do not think this House is going to mix itself up very much with concessions granted in this way in the past. What can we do supposing a select committee is appointed ? We come down to a question of money in the end. You cannot recognize any concessions in Pondoland ; but what might happen is, the select committee might say—

That would be an entirely futile course to adopt, because even if it were adopted, the Government cannot recommend that money should be paid. From every aspect of the case, it seems to me an inquiry into this matter would be futile, and would not lead to anything. I therefore think it is the right attitude for the Government to take up to set out clearly what the position is, and to make it clear that whether a select committee is appointed or not, the result will be futile. In these circumstances, I very greatly regret the Government is unable to accept the motion. I practically confined my argument to the moral aspect, and to the fact that on the moral aspect previous governments have dealt with the whole matter, and we are not prepared to say that previous governments were wrong in the attitude they took up.

I sincerely hope the Minister has not definitely decided against this appeal for a select committee.

Not I, but the Government has decided very definitely.

I am perfectly sure that if the House was in possession of all the many details it would consider the question from the aspect of simple justice for a British subject. It must not be forgotten that when Mr. Cook went to the courts for redress, both the Supreme Court in this country and the Privy Council in England gave him the same advice ; they recommended him to go to this Parliament. For the first time he now comes to Parliament. It took 5½ years before the Privy Council heard his case. When these two courts sent this British subject to a British Parliament and told him to lay his case before it they had the belief that justice would be done. What is the justice asked for ? The petitioner asks that his case be heard. If gone into on the question of right this Parliament would realize that this country has taken possession of assets which cost the petitioner a very considerable amount of money. I am putting it as a question of justice. Why the Government should not consent to a select committee going into the whole case I do not quite know. The decision would still rest with Parliament. In 1919 the petitioner saw Gen. Botha in London, who said he had had a conversation with Lord de Villiers, then in London, and had gone thoroughly into the matter and would see that Cook was met as a matter of equity, but he would do nothing until he got back to the Cape. Unfortunately he died within three months of his return and the matter was hung up. I am perfectly certain had Gen. Botha lived, a thorough and full inquiry would have been made. That is one reason why I think Parliament would be more satisfied if there was a select committee report upon it. It is such a simple and costless procedure that I cannot understand why there should be a desire not to adopt it. According to a high legal authority these were not concessions in the accepted sense, but legally constituted leases. As a matter of fact fully £6 000 was paid out in regard to the rentals. The Government have possession of all the assets ; they have taken over the whole thing. It is perfectly certain that had the British Government remained in possession justice would have been done to the petitioner. We are heirs and successors of the British Government in Pondoland and are we now going to say we will not recognize these rights ? I feel sure if the question were left entirely to Parliament, members would say let this case be thoroughly gone into ; let us hear what the petitioner has to say. It is such a simple request to make that I do hope the plea for justice will be heard and acceded to.

I think the Minister should have considered more carefully the advisability of this matter going before a select committee. I want to suggest to the Minister that because any other Government has decided to turn the case down that is no reason why this Government should not go into the matter. I am sorry the Minister has taken up this attitude, because if it goes out to the world that because a previous Government has turned a petition down this Government is going to do so, it will create a very bad impression throughout the country.

I wonder what the Minister of Justice would have said if when the old Transvaal officials had come to the House they had been told—

It seems an extraordinary position for the Minister of Justice to come to the House and say because some previous Government turned this down it is final. It is an absurdity. I think it will convince nobody. It is a singularly weak argument. The Minister knows quite well that it was Sigcau’s wish at the time of annexation that these rights should be recognized. The Minister has also made a statement, on the basis of something said to him, which is absolutely denied by the Cook brothers, that they had anything to do with the cancellation of previous concessions. In a letter from Mr. Cook, dated June 2nd, 1925, he deals with the allegation that his leases were in existence and had been given to another party, and that he, Mr. Cook, had by means of money caused Sigcau to cancel them, and make them over to them, and he says—

He says “for money.” I never said a word about money. There is no denial of my statement.

He said he would be only too happy to prove it before any committee the House might appoint. I do not propose that the House should decide it upon my ipse dixit any more than I say the House should decide on the Minister’s ipse dixit. To make ex parte statements, which are denied, is not a fair way of stating a case. Lord de Villiers, up to the day of his death, took a keen interest in the matter. There is no suggestion that Lord de Villiers altered his opinion one iota, from the day he delivered his judgment to the day he died. There has been no decision after enquiry ; and no opportunity for Cook brothers to be heard by any of the Governments. Does the Minister mean to say that when we write letters and the Government replies, that they cannot do it, that means that there has been a final decision ? On 9th September, 1924, Mr. Cook wrote to the secretary of the Prime Minister that the information supplied to him (the Prime Minister) had been most erroneous, and it was most incorrect to say that two petitions had been presented to the House of Assembly. “It is most untrue,” he also wrote, “that I have sold all my interest in the concessions ; the original documents are and always have been in my exclusive possession.” Should it not go before the committee to see whether anybody but Cook brothers have any interest in it? Mr. Cook explained what financial arrangement was made in London, and why that was cancelled. There is no question of anybody else being interested in the slightest degree. Remove all these extraneous matters—what might be called red herrings drawn across the trail. Here is a man who has been singled out for non-recognition. Swaziland and Matabeleland concessions could be treated in one way, and not Mr. Cook. It is unheard of for a civilized Government to take over assets lawfully acquired by somebody else, and by a legal technicality to take them and say—

The only ground in the previous letter of the Minister of Justice was that it should have been decided before Union. There is one other point, with regard to the delay, with which the Minister has dealt again, and I thought the matter had been explained. They had to wait some years before the Privy Council gave their judgment: then came the war; then the enquiry in the Cape Parliament, in which Mr. Cook had no opportunity of taking part. With regard to the gentleman whose name was given by the Minister, viz., Sir William Stanford, he gave evidence against Mr. Cook before the Pondoland concessions committee, although Mr. Cook was not allowed to give evidence. I do not think the Minister is entitled to read out extracts from statements made by persons who, for some reason or another, took a hostile view, and are not dealing impartially in the matter. The statements of the Minister will not bear investigation, and to refuse an enquiry on this very inadequate ground is setting up a very bad precedent.

Motion put and Mr. Alexander called for a division.

Upon which the House divided.

I move—

I would like to point out, in connection with this case, that the House agreed twice that there should be a select committee to deal with the matters raised by Schierhout. In 1920 a select committee was appointed, but it transpired that the subject-matter of the committee’s enquiry was at that time sub judice. The matters referred to then have since been decided and, although there are other matters pending, they are not matters that need be brought before the committee ; because the particular matter that was dealt with then, that of his retirement, was dealt with by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in 1922. On the 26th of August, 1924, the House ordered that the petition of Schierhout be referred to a select committee for enquiry and report, but the session had advanced too far for the enquiry to be proceeded with that session and the committee recommended that the matter be brought up early in the following session. I did not bring up the matter last session because the Government made an offer to compensate Mr. Schierhout as far as monetary compensation could rectify his grievance ; but, contrary to my advice, he declined to accept on the ground that it was not a question of monetary compensation, but that he wanted to fix responsibility for what had been wrongly done to him when he was removed and when that publication appeared to the effect that he had been removed because of misconduct—although his name was not specifically mentioned—which was wrong. He had been given another post because a magistrate found that he was temperamentally unfitted for his duties, but in no case involving a finding of misconduct. At any rate, he asks in this petition that the select committee of 1924, which could not continue its work, should now be allowed to resume, that is that a select committee should be appointed to go into the circumstances of his case. Schierhout was assistant magistrate at Somerset West on 5th December, 1913, when he was charged with misconduct of a serious character ; in that he had conducted himself in an unbecoming manner in the discharge of his duties and had shown gross discourtesy to members of the public. An enquiry was held by Mr. Blackstone Williams, who gave his finding on the 16th February, 1914, and the commission informed the Secretary for Justice that Mr. Schierhout was temperamentally unfit for the magisterial branch, and should be removed therefrom. As he had applied for leave, however, they recommended that the order of suspension should be withdrawn and suggested that this application for leave should be granted to him. He received his emoluments as before, and got his annual increments in the ordinary way. There was, therefore, no suggestion made to him that he had been found guilty of misconduct. It was only by reference to the Blue Book published in 1916, that he found out that, although no names were mentioned, his transfer was shown as one due to misconduct. This he considers to be an absolute inaccuracy and a reflection on him, in a Blue Book, presented to Parliament, and has caused the trouble in connection with his case. I take it that the House, having agreed to the enquiry in 1924, and that committee having only been prevented from going into the matter through lack of time, the House will now agree to allowing Schierhout to have the preceedings continued, in order that the circumstances of his case may be enquired into. Nothing that is in any way sub judice will be brought before this committee. I move the motion standing in my name.

seconded.

I may say that this is an inheritance we are troubled with year by year, and a considerable amount of new reading matter has been manufactured since the case was dealt with in 1924 ; so much so that I do not propose to accede to the request that this case should go to a select committee. I do not think anybody who knows Schierhout has any doubt that he is unfitted, not through misconduct, to sit on any judicial bench. From the first time I inherited this matter, I did my best to see whether I could not arrive at some settlement. There was a case pending at the time we took office, which went to appeal. The court decided on appeal that Schierhout was entitled to damages owing to having been wrongly removed from his office. When he was declared entitled to damages, I took up the attitude that we should tender an amount which would probably be in excess of the damage he could prove, and we tendered £750 with the idea that that would cover his full salary up to his retiring age—he was then on pension—and, after that he would continue with his pension ; and, with his pension, that would practically make full salary up to his retiring age. This £750, for some reason, seemed to irritate him. He was not there for monetary considerations and he wanted to vindicate the lower judicial branch of the service. He was not satisfied with the question of damages and went back to court for an order, which was changed to one of reinstatement. The Appellate Court agreed to that. We thought now Mr. Schierhout was satisfied, but we had reckoned without our host again. He was then asked to take up a similar position and grade to that which he occupied when he was retired—that of professional assistant to the attorney-general at Pietermaritzburg. He had previously been in the same position at Pretoria. He agreed to that, and we asked on what date he would be prepared to take up office. He gave us a date and we accepted it. We thought here, at all events, this matter is finished, but we had again reckoned without our host. He at once took up the position that he was being insulted by being sent to Pietermaritzburg. The first thing he did was, he said he wanted to go to Cape Town— he got full salary up to that stage—to prosecute someone in Cape Town. We said: “We have no objection to your prosecuting people in Cape Town if you want to do so, but we think it might be as well for you first to go to Pietermaritzburg for a certain time and we will then assist you in getting to Cape Town to make these prosecutions.” He did not want that. He did not go to Pietermaritzburg and we asked the public service commission to investigate this disobedience. It is very serious misconduct indeed. He then went to the Bar Council in the Transvaal to ask whether we had the right to ask him to do this professional work in Pietermaritzburg. He had been doing this work for years without complaint, but today this work was such an indignity to the whole legal profession in South Africa that he thought he would take the Bar Council’s opinion. The question was answered against him, and then he, said he would not go to Pietermaritzburg, and returned to prosecution work. He applied to the Court three times. For months he has been keeping us hanging in the air ; from the Transvaal he took his case to the Appellate Division, and he has just recently lost three appeals, and in between he had an application made in Cape Town against us. Any amount of expense is being involved, and I do not know where we are going to get the costs from. In the interval my hon. friend asked if there was any way in which we could give Mr. Schierhout an allowance. I found we could make him an allowance, and we forwarded him a warrant at the rate of £20 a month. However, I got back the warrant from him with a most insulting letter, saying he was not to be bought off in that way. After that, I am afraid that I am in the same position as my predecessor, and am entirely at a loss to see the best way in which to deal with the matter. I have done the best I can for him, but I cannot put, the clack back, and put him back into the magistrate’s court at Somerset West. I do not think any Government would be entitled to place him on the magisterial bench. There have been piles of correspondence with a strong flavour of defamation running through it, and most of that defamation is still being aimed at my predecessor. I say that with a certain amount of smug self satisfaction, but I know I am going to share the same fate as my predecessor. The latest victims were the wives of the Ministers, who, on Christmas Eve, received epistles from him. I am speaking to day in fear and trembling, because the result of this is that I am going to be inundated with correspondence. There is enough correspondence already on this subject to fill a large room. Mr. Schierhout is the unfortunate victim of cacoethes scribendi, which is even worse than cacoethes loquendi, because the loquendi part of it you can get rid of, but the scribendi part you have to treasure most carefully. We are going to have a lot of expense in building new housing accommodation for the Schierhout correspondence. I do not think for a single moment that the matter is susceptible of human settlement. I am certain there will be any number of new snags, but I have offered him every penny to which he is legally and morally entitled. I have endeavoured to help him, even where it is not legally necessary. However, we have been insulted in every possible way, and the position I am going to take up in future is that Mr. Schierhout is going to get his strict legal rights, but nothing more. He has had his chance. He has frittered money away in connection with all these proceedings which probably will have to be borne by the taxpayers in the end, and now he is going to get nothing but his strict legal rights. We are not going to waste more money on a select committee ; no possible object can be achieved by having a select committee. I have never been more certain that I am right when I say that no Government should allow a select committee to go into a case of this kind. I have done all in my power to meet the legal and moral rights of Mr. Schierhout, and I do hope that the House will not accept a motion of this kind.

I have sympathy with the Minister in the mass of correspondence he is getting, but I do not think he is receiving any more from Mr. Schierhout than I am. I agree that the Government offered very generous compensation to Mr. Schierhout, but when men are labouring under a grievance, there are some persons who are so constituted that they will not accept money compensation when a slur rests on their name, and that is the position of Mr. Schierhout. The motion does not ask for compensation. A select committee would have brought the matter to finality. The Minister shakes his head. I do not know how better you could reach finality in this matte than by referring it to select committee.

Motion put, and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Alexander, Rockey and Snow) voted in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker declared the motion negatived.

I move—

I take it there will be no objection to this motion, which simply asks that a petition from certain 17 members of the permanent staff of the public service, who want the matter of the readjustment of their salaries to be gone into, should be referred to the Government for consideration. Four of the petitioners are in the Department of Lands, six in the Department of Defence, five in the Department of Finance, one in the Department of Education, and one in the Department of Labour. It appears that, owing to some delay in their appointment from the temporary staff to the permanent staff, they are getting the lower scale instead of the scale recommended by the commission on the fifth report, and they point out that they have not been fairly dealt with in that way. They were absorbed into the permanent establishment under the Act of 1923 temporarily, and, as far as their pensions are concerned, were given the option to contribute as from their entry as temporary officers ; but, so far as their salaries are concerned, they have been put on the lower scale.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is a similar petition from the present Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Cape Province, in which he points out certain grievances in connection with his grading. This is also a matter which ought to be considered by the Government, seeing that it is a question of grading.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

As representing the Winterton settlers I would like to endorse what the Minister has said, that the Bill, as finally printed, has been submitted to a meeting of settlers and has met with their approval. I welcome the Bill, and I want to express my appreciation to the Minister for meeting the settlers’ wishes with regard to amendments suggested by them to the Bill as originally drafted. There were two points the settlers raised which they regarded as being of vital importance, the one point being in regard to the condition under which they were prevented from acquiring more than one plot. I am glad to see the Minister has met them in that respect. The condition referred to is to be found in sec. 4 (a) of Act 39 of 1908, which reads as follows: “No transfer shall be registered by the Registrar of Deeds in favour of any person other than a European or in favour of any person who is the registered owner of any other irrigation lot. These settlers have been labouring under that disability for a very long time, and there is no question about it that the comparative failure of the settelment is largely due to the fact that the holdings, as laid out originally, were too small, and it was impossible for them to enlarge them. That has now been remedied, and the settlers very much appreciate the fact that the Minister has met them to that extent. Another of their objections in regard to which the Minister has met them is in connection with the grazing rights. The owners and lessees of irrigable lots claim that grazing rights on the commonage belong exclusively to them, and provision has now been made in the Bill to safeguard those rights. I hope it is perfectly clear to the Minister that the unalienated Crown lands within the area of the settlement are forthwith to be assigned to the Board and that when the settlers obtain freehold title to their holdings those unalienated Crown lands will be transferred to the board in trust for the settlers.

That is the idea.

The Minister is quite right when he says this settlement was originally designed for the purposes of intensive farming, in the way of fruit growing particularly, and possibly dairying on a small scale. It was an experiment well worth trying. It has not proved an unqualified success, due mainly to the fact that the holdings were too small, coupled with the fact that the settlers were confronted with labour difficulties, and also they found that the land was not altogether suitable for irrigation purposes. When the Minister introduced the Settlements (Committee of Management Act, 1925), last session, I asked him to apply the principle laid down in that Act to Winterton, and I desire to thank the Minister for having acceded to my request.

I do not know the conditions at Winterton well, but I think that the move for extension is first class, and I should like to ask the Minister whether the Act relating to the extension of the ground will also apply to settlements in the Transvaal, as I am aware there is not sufficient room, e.g. in the proximity of Kinross settlement. The plots are too small, and I hope the provisions will also apply there. I know there are people who possess ground and are willing to sell to a neighbour, but under the old law they have not that right. It will be of value to the people if this Bill also applies to them.

I will reply briefly. This Bill is not applicable to other settlements. The hon. member will remember that in the Act with regard to general land settlement which was passed last year, it was provided that if the Land Board and the Minister were convinced that the plots were too small, the Minister on the recommendation of the Land Board could enlarge them by getting some of the settlers to go away and by ceding their ground to neighbouring owners. The general law provides for what the hon. member mentions, but it does not apply to ordinary farms—there are exceptions—or to ground purchased under section 11. It only applies to closer settlements. There the plots can be enlarged.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time ; House to go into committee now.

House in committee :

On Clause 1,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading to-morrow.

I move—

Acts were passed in 1923 and 1924 with reference to the establishment of the Board of Trade and Industries, and it is proposed in this Bill to amend them. The object of the first amendment is to give the board, or persons indicated by them, the right of inspection and of making extracts from books of any business company or undertaking. Doubt exists about the rights of the board under the existing law, and the proposal is therefore that—

It has happened that the handing over of books required for a proper report by the board was refused and occasioned difficulties and unpleasantness. The object of sub-section (a) is to put the rights of the board beyond doubt. The object of the second amendment, i.e., of sub-section (1) (b) is to secure that no official or member of the board shall have the right 11 publish information and data obtained in his capacity under the Act. Then sub-section (c) says that—

1. (a) obstructs or hinders the board or any member, officer or representative thereof in the exercise of its or his powers under this Act or any amendment thereof ;
2. (b) fails or refuses to comply in any respect with the terms of a written notice given to him under sub-section
   1. (1) or any amendment thereof ;

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds. Section (2) provides—

About this there was also a doubt, and of course it goes without saying that if the Board of Trade and Industries is to carry out its duties properly it should have the powers now proposed.

I think this is a far more important Bill than the statement of the Minister would lead the House to believe. The Bill gives important powers to the Board of Trade. I might almost say “Star Chamber” powers.

On the motion of Mr. Jagger, debate adjourned ; to be resumed on 22nd April.