I move—

Just before this Bill leaves this House for the last time I wish to state that I feel, and feel very strongly that the passing of the Bill in its present form will not give satisfaction to the country. At no time nave I opposed the principle of an increase of members’ salaries. The very opposite. What I am more concerned about in regard to this Bill is the position in which the Senate has been placed. They practically have had no voice in the matter. On the average the sittings of the Senate are about 50 each session, and we propose to give the members of that House an allowance of £700 a year. They are allowed 15 days’ leave each session, and many of them have availed themselves of that leave, so that we get an average of about 35 attendances per session, which means that members of the Senate are to get £20 a day for their attendance. That, I consider, is unsound. I always understood that this was an allowance; it was not a salary. The need of an increased allowance, as far as the Senate is concerned, is nothing like so great as the need in this House. Senators have no election expenses, and they have no demands made upon them from constituents. A country member informed me the other day that he had to visit 20 places every year in order to meet his constituents. I think the thing is very wrong in principle. We have eliminated from this Bill one or two objectionable features. One of them was that a member had to apply for the increased allowance. Another proposal that members should call a meeting of their constituents and put it to them whether they were in favour of the increased allowance, seemed to me out of the question. I learnt from one of the head officials here the miserable pay given to the messengers and other people employed by this House, especially considering the extremely long hours that they are called upon to work.

Order. I do not think the hon. member can discuss that.

I simply wish to raise my protest against this Bill, especially as I think it is unreasonable to give the members of the Senate this increased allowance.

I just want to say a few words in answer to what the hon. member (Mr. D. M. Brown) has urged. Does he know of any second chamber in, at all events, the community of British nations where any discrimination is made between the allowances of members of the second chamber as compared with members of the frst chamber?

Yes, New Zealand.

Well, that is one instance.

Great Britain.

I am not speaking of the House of Lords.

It is a second chamber.

Newfoundland and New Zealand.

The hon. member (Mr. D. M. Brown), I take it, voted against what has not inaptly, been called—

It might be just as invidious to draw a distinction between the allowances of senators and members of the House of Assembly as it would be to have kept that “crawling clause” in the Bill. It is true by minute calculation you might make the thing appear somewhat absurd, but we hope that by experience we might introduce some procedure which would make the attendance of senators more regular in the Senate than has been the case up to now. On the simple principle that it would be invidious to discriminate between the allowances for the Senate and those for the House of Assembly, I think the hon. member’s argument ought not to carry great weight.

Motion put, and Dr. de Jager called for a division.

Upon whch the House divided:

This is undoubtedly an extremely important matter. I do not think that hon. members quite see what the ultimate results of this will be. I say advisedly this is not the last word in the assistance of the sugar industry. The system on which you are going now is absolutely unsound ; in fact it is rotten. Take the position in 1922. The late Government appointed a commission in 1922 to enquire into the position of the sugar industry in Zululand and Natal. This report is dated May, 1922. The position then was this, according to the report—

That is done. In Mozambique sugar comes in as foreign sugar and pays the full duty. That was the position then. Two points come out, that at that particular time the industry asked for no additional protective duty. The industry now is again in difficulties, and they are asking for increased protection, and the Government proposes, subject to this Bill and other conditions, to give them that increased protection. Why is that ? When they were in the position in 1922 that they did not require further protection, why four years after do they come and ask for the protection to be practically doubled ? The explanation is this. In 1920-’21 the production of sugar was 143,000 tons. The production last year was 235,000 tons, an enormous increase. The consumption of sugar in this country is estimated, and I think it is a liberal estimate, at 170,000 tons. The balance that is left over, as shown in the returns, has to be exported. When it is exported it is sold at a loss. They get from £11 to £14 for it. On every ton that is exported a loss is made. As the report points out quite frankly—

Therefore the more the industry increases and the more it produces, the worse the difficulties and the more the loss it makes. With this very high protection they are getting now it will amount to close on 1d. a lb. The more the industry develops the more will be the loss.

This is not the place to say it.

Of course it is, because here we are asked to fix prices. In a few years from now—two or three years at the outside— the industry will come along and ask for prices to be increased still further. It is a lamentable thing to say—and I say it with regret—the industry is not in a good position.

Is it your argument that this is an industry that is going under ?

I am stating only facts—let hon. members draw their own conclusions. It is better for the country to have a flourishing industry.

You mean we cannot compete in the world’s markets ?

No: unfortunately. This commission of the Board of Trade agreed that it is not in a sound economic position. The commission of 1922 says—

These agreements are very onesided.

Exactly. There are only about 1,600 Europeans engaged in this industry. It would pay the country to pension them all off rather than go on the present system and increasing the losses. This country cannot afford to go on on the lines it is going on now.

If this country followed the political economic doctrine of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) it would be bankrupt, and would have no future whatsoever. The policy argued by the hon. member that, because you send something overseas to pay for your imports and the country is thereby losing by it, is to me unthinkably unsound. As to the position of the industry in 1922, it was in an entirely different position. The world’s markets were different, and you did not have one million tons of sugar with which you did not know what to do. The industry did not come to the Government to get the report of 1922. That commission sat in Durban, and took evidence from both sides, on which it founded its report. A chartered accountant took three months to go into the books, which the 1922 commission did not do. An expert chemist was sent to go into the facts, as well as an engineer, and the engineer’s report is to be found at the back of the Board of Trade’s report, in which he shows that the industry has increased in efficiency since 1922 about 10 per cent. There was an increase of about 10 per cent. of extraction. In order to enable this Bill to go through without any risk of its being withdrawn again, I want to withdraw the amendment which I put on the paper making the price for refined sugar 4d. instead of 3¾d., and I am asked to do this by the industry, as they do not want to be jeopardized in any way. The industry realizes that they are forced to do this to get the Bill through.

With leave of committee amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholls withdrawn.

The amendment I moved was accepted by the Minister, but was simply an elucidating amendment to clarify Clause 1.

Mr. Stuttaford’s amendment (first part) put and agreed to.

I am authorized by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to withdraw the amendment standing in his name.

I am sorry I cannot accept this. The committee of course can negative it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell put and negatived.

I think it is a great pity that the Minister of Finance is not here, because we want to make it quite clear what he will and what he won’t accept. I would like it definitely from him that he will accept my amendment (to delete the proviso). Either I would withdraw my amendments altogether and move them in at the next stage, or we will carry my amendments at this stage, and the Minister can move them out at the next stage if he objects to them. That is with regard to the clarification of this clause.

I must state that with regard to the other amendments I am in this position—I understood no amendments would be pressed at all this morning. However, I am taking the word of the hon. member, and we will move it out later on if there is any misunderstanding.

This is a consequential amendment.

The Minister (of Finance) has come in.

The point is this—I had better mention to the Minister of Finance what has happened. The amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has been withdrawn, and that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has been negatived. The question is the amendment which I moved to the clause—an elucidating amendment. The first two words have been carried, and the question is whether the House should delete the whole amendment, and, if necessary, I should move it at the report stage, or if it is agreed to now, the Minister can move it out at the report stage. I am entirely in the hands of the Minister of Finance. If he says he will not take the amendment at all, I shall accept his ruling ; but if he is agreeable to accept my amendment, which simply elucidates his intention under Clause 1, then I suggest he should let the amendment go through.

I will accept the balance of the amendment. I do not want to prolong the discussion. I have told the hon. member that this section, as it reads, gives me all the powers necessary in the matter. I have no intention of varying the prices from time to time, and consequently the amendment might as well have been withdrawn, but as part of it has been accepted, I do not object to its going in.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move— In line 29, after “castor” to insert “,icing".

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

Before dealing with the amendments to the Act as proposed in this Bill, I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for having given me the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am naturally very keenly interested in anything that affects the diamond industry and I desire to express my gratification at the Minister’s action in giving me this opportunity. I should like to appeal to the Minister and to ask him if he could not see his way clear not to proceed with this Bill during the present session. Even if the Minister is negotiating with people overseas in regard to establishing a diamond cutting industry in South Africa, any arrangements which he may come to, or which he may desire to come to, will have to be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament during the next session and there is no point in passing this Bill now as it will not assist the Minister in any scheme which he may contemplate. It is strange, but it is a fact, that no one seems to learn anything from history. The very amendments now proposed were contained in the Act when it was introduced originally and were deleted with the assistance of the National party. When the Bill was originally introduced by the South African party, Mr. Hirschhorn, who then represented the Diamond Syndicate, with Mr. Brink and myself, interviewed Mr. Wilcocks, who in the absence of Gen. Hertzog was then acting as leader of the National party, and we asked him if he would assist us in having certain provisions deleted. I remember that particular interview with a great deal of interest, particularly the question of taking diamonds in series which was discussed. Mr. Wilcocks himself remarked that it seemed very hard that cutters should have to take diamonds in series, but Mr. Hirschhorn put the question this way—

Mr. Hirschhorn then put a very homely simile to Mr. Wilcocks, and said—

That is really the effect of being forced to sell single stones. The diamond trade is carried on in series and the diamond cutting trade is also carried on in series. I realize that it would be a great advantage for a cutter to be able to come to my office and pick, say, a two carat stone and nothing else—it would be a great advantage to him if he could pick out just what he wanted. So long as this demand for single stones was small no great harm would be done, but when the trade develops— and the whole object of this Bill is to develop the diamond cutting industry on a big scale— then we should be faced with the position of having to sell a large number of single stones and be left with the others on our hands. That in due course would make us bankrupt. The Minister knows that we have entered into diamond buying contracts which involve no less than £40,000,000 worth of diamonds over a period of five years.

How much do you say?

£40,000,000 worth in value. So it really means a very serious thing for the trade if the principle is adopted that we are to be forced to sell diamonds to certain people and that we are to be forced to sell single stones. It is a very serious thing if we are to be told that we must sell our diamonds at a particular price and that we must supply single stones at that price. The price being what we ourselves have agreed to pay for millions of pounds worth of diamonds plus a small addition of 5 per cent. only for the selected stones. Even if it were correct to force us to supply a single stone to a cutter surely he should pay the market price and the producer should get the benefit of eliminating the middle man. It does not seem reasonable to force the producer to sell a single stone at his wholesale selling price. Besides it is absolutely impossible to ascertain what an individual diamond costs. As far as rough diamonds are concerned undoubtedly the Minister has the best possible technical advice, but I challenge anyone to value a single diamond to within five per cent. I challenge anyone to say that any given diamonds are worth just £100. They may, in fact, be worth £105 or they may be worth £95. In a huge parcel of diamonds experienced valuators find that the mistakes made in one lot are equalized in another. Say, for instance, that two expert diamond valuators, Mr. Brink for one, and if I may mention myself, for the other, were to value a large parcel of diamonds, the total valuation would probably be approximately the same in each case, but in individual stones we might differ much more than five per cent. I have now dealt with two important points of the Bill—the question of series and the question of price—but the most serious point of all is that relating to partly manufactured stones. In the regulations under the Act partly manufactured diamonds are defined as stones which have been sawn, cleaved or cut, or in respect of which some process has been carried out. The Minister proposes that diamonds under one carat may be exported in a partly manufactured state with enormous concessions in regard to the export duty. Let me tell the Minister that if the whole production of the Union were to be taken and cleaved there would hardly be a single stone weighing more than one carat, so that the proposed concession is really being made on the whole production of the Union. It is rather wearisome to quote a lot of figures now but I recently made enquiries in Amsterdam and find that the latest prices for cleaving a diamond vary from 1s. to 10s. per carat according to size and quality, and for sawing a diamond weighing from 1-10th to ¼ carat, 10d. per stone. Sawing a stone of one carat or more costs 2s. 6d. per carat. The cutting, which includes polishing, varies with the size of stones and quality, but the average cost of stones weighing six to the carat is £2 15s. per carat ; of stones weighing four to the carat £2 5s. per carat ; and of a stone of one carat or more £1 2s. 6d. per carat. So the Minister will see what an infinitesimal amount of work and money is required for simply cleaving or sawing a stone as compared to the cost of producing a brilliant. Yet the process of cleaving produces a partly manufactured stone in terms of the Act, and would entitle a man to the enormous concessions which the Minister proposes. Suppose a man opens a factory with, say, a hundred saws, and picks out the single stones he requires. He obtains the advantage of per cent. for the first two years and 5 per cent. for the next three years in export tax.

He also obtains a considerable benefit in the reduced price at which he obtains these stones from the producer. Altogether I estimate that he will receive a benefit of from 12½ per cent. to 17½ per cent. for doing an almost negligible amount of work and employing a very small number of men. But the effect of these concessions will be that the price of diamonds will drop. The first man who is clever enough or fortunate enough to make a contract with the hon. the Minister, will reap the full advantage, but the next man who come along and contracts for perhaps a large percentage of the output will discover that the value of diamonds has already dropped as the result of the concessions given to the first man, and in this way the diamond market will be undermined. I now come to a most important aspect of this question. The Minister of Finance may be indifferent as to whether people dealing in diamonds make profits or not, but surely he cannot be indifferent to the loss of revenue which will result from these provisions. America has made a determined effort during thirty years to establish a diamond cutting industry, but it has not been successful, as not more than 350 men are employed in diamond cutting in that country. I feel quite sure that the loss of revenue which would result from an attempt to establish a diamond cutting industry in South Africa on the lines of this Bill, would be far greater than the total amount which would be paid out in wages to diamond cutters here. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that this trade is so intricate and that we have worked so hard to re-establish it on a sound basis, that it seems a pity that at this juncture a measure of this kind should be rushed through. If I had thought that this Bill would be proceeded with this year I would have prepared myself with a great many facts and figures which would have convinced the Minister of the futility of introducing legislation of this kind.

Where is the “rushing” when the thing has been on the Order Paper for the last two years ?

If I had thought that the Bill would have been proceeded with at this stage—

You ought to have assumed that it would be proceeded with.

From conversations I had with members of the Ministry before I left for Johannesburg I thought it would not be proceeded with this session.

I certainly did not give you that impression.

That is correct—I suggest to the Minister that the South African party, the National party and I myself are all anxious to see a diamond cutting industry established in South Africa.

You have never done it.

It is not my business. I am a dealer in rough diamonds. The hon. member himself has not done it. There are five cutting establishments in a small way in the Union. If the Minister will make enquiries he will find that since I have had control of South African diamonds, I have gone out of my way to supply diamonds to these people at very moderate prices, and I am sure they make profits. I have gone out of my way to supply them with diamonds at a reasonable price, and every one of these people will tell the Minister that I am dealing fairly with them. But I tell you that you cannot establish a diamond cutting industry either under the original Act or under this Bill. You can never do it on an ad valorem basis. The cutting of diamonds costs a certain amount per Carat, and the worse a diamond is, the more processes are required, and the more it costs to finish it. Therefore, the cost of cutting has nothing at all to do with the value of the stone. Take, for example, a big Jagersfontein diamond worth, say, £60 a carat; 10 per cent. is too much protection, because the cost of cutting is relatively small. The bulk of our diamonds, however, average only 60s. per carat—10 per cent. amounts to 6s., and that is too little protection for the establishment of a diamond cutting industry. That is conclusively proved by what has happened in America. America also gave 10 per cent. ad valorem protection, and after 30 years has not succeeded in establishing a cutting industry there. If the Minister wishes to establish an industry here, it must be done by means of the bounty system per carat.

Then your argument is that the existing Act signifies nothing, and ought never to have been passed.

If we want to establish a cutting industry here, the principle of the ad valorem basis is of no use. We would have the most valuable stones being cut here for the sake of protection, which on these stones is excessive, while the small stones where the protection is too little would not be cut here at all. If the Minister wants a genuine diamond cutting industry established, he should consult with the Minister of Finance and be prepared to spend from £200,000 to £500,000 as a bounty for the people who wish to cut diamonds in South Africa. He can quite easily arrive at a scale whereby there would be a bigger bounty for small stones and a smaller bounty for the bigger stones. If you hold out an inducement of, say, from 15s. to 30s. per carat, then you may succeed ; but it is of no use talking about a small man undertaking this enterprise, because, in order to cut diamonds, large sums of money have to be invested. The trade in rough diamonds is done on a cash basis and involves large amounts of money, while the trade in brilliants is done on a very big credit system. An enquiry should be held to see whether the lines on which we are proceeding are the right ones.

I understand that there is a likelihood of the chairman of the Board of Trade visiting Europe shortly in order to be in a position to advise the Government on this matter. I should be only too happy not only to show him the various intricacies and the methods by which the rough trade is carried on, but also to see that he is made thoroughly familiar with the whole diamond business, so that when he returns to South Africa he will be in a position to tell the Government what lines they should follow for the establishment of a diamond cutting industry here. To sum up my objections to the Bill, I feel most strongly that a system which forces us to sell single stones is a most pernicious one. Let us, by all means, help the genuine cutter, but the first thing that is essential is the sale of diamonds in series, and for this Government assistance will probably be required. It is not reasonable to say that we must sell single stones at the original price, and without having regard to the fact that the removal of those stones from the series reacts prejudicially on the value of the remainder of that series. It will not help the diamond cutter to bring in the Bill as it stands at present. It is not reasonable to say that the cutter shall be allowed to pick out what he requires at the price at which we buy these diamonds. I have already put forward my objections with regard to the proposals relating to partly manufactured stones. Unless the diamond cutting industry is established in South Africa on sound principles, the loss to the Exchequer will far outweigh the amount of wages paid to the men who may be employed in diamond cutting here. The Minister’s proposals would undermine the whole fabric of the diamond trade, and bring prices down. I appeal again to the Minister to make the fullest enquiry before continuing on the lines of this legislation, and I offer my help and all the knowledge I possess to assist him in this matter.

The hon. member has spoken very temperately and even charmingly, but he quite ignores one thing, and that is that this diamond industry is carried on under licence from the State, which grants certain people control of an establishes what is practically a world monopoly in this asset of the country. Around it they have built up a perfect wall of special protection, and upset the whole principle of British law to protect themselves. We now have the principle that a man must show how he has got possession of a diamond, and on him is thrown the onus of proving his innocence. It is unknown elsewhere under British law. The result of this monopoly is that while South Africa has produced £300,000,000 worth of diamonds, the effect has been to enrich the Solly Joels, and people with foreign names—

but when one goes to Kimberley it is to see that the net result is a few chimney stacks of the De Beers company, but no other industry whatever, apart from the glorious industry of trapping, one of the most miserable things ever imposed on a country. This big asset we have parted with, and now financiers say—

and Government must see that we have full control, and there shall be no interference with the licensees of our national heritage. Very insinuatingly the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) said, why should he be compelled to sell the trousers of a suit and not the coat and waistcoat. That argument was very speciously put. Let me put the views of a cutter. He writes in the first place, why should this industry be tied up tooth and nail ? A merchant tailor buys his material where and how he likes, makes it up into a suit of clothes and no question is asked. The diamond cutter is hedged round with restrictions. A law, he says, should be passed so that any duly licensed cutter can buy and cut and sell his diamonds wherever he likes. If he buys stolen property he must take the same risk as any other merchant takes. The curious thing is that outside this country there is the free-est trade in diamonds. As soon as the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) gets his diamonds on board ship he can do as he likes with them. In London, Amsterdam, Paris or New York, one can walk about with our country’s gems and buy or sell with the utmost freedom. Not so here in the country of production. In this country if you find a diamond in a chicken’s crop and you don’t go and report it, you can be sentenced to 5 years’ hard labour on the breakwater.

You deserve it then.

Not always. We have got this specious argument whispered into the ear of the Minister of Finance—

The hon. member would not talk about £40,000,000 being invested in the trade if he and his associates thought it was as precarious as is often pretended. He knows that America bought over £8,000,000 of diamonds last year and will buy £10,000,000 next year. He knows that the value of diamonds is going up and up ; he knows that the market is absolutely firm, and now he comes here and says—

The original Diamond Cutting Act of 1819 should have been entitled the Diamond Cutting Prevention Act. May I ask Mr. Speaker whether I would be in order if I were to move into this Amendment Bill that it is merely a Diamond Cutting Prevention Act? When it was first introduced five years ago, we had it from the instructed press—

I ask the hon. member for Kimberley—

Our people have been fooled that way from the start and if Ministers choose to be fooled still it is their own fault. The hon. member for Kimberley is here to serve his own interest and that interest is not the interest of the community.

Order.

I do not think the hon. member is entitled to say that in regard to any member of this House.

Will I be in order then in saying that amongst the interests which the hon. member is here to represent is the particular interest of diamond producers?

On a point of order, the hon. member said that the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) was here to serve his own interest.

I think the hon. member (Mr. Hay) should withdraw that.

Well, I will withdraw that particular statement, and I think I may be allowed to say that amongst the interests the hon. member is serving is also the diamond producing interest. I am defending the general interests of the people as against this particular and highly protected monopoly. The people’s benefit is to me very much greater than the special interests represented by the hon. gentleman. It is quite right that the sale of these stones should be controlled, so as to preserve he price at which they can be put on the world’s markets. I freely admit that, but so far the monopolists’ interest has been not to see what is the most they could do with this asset in this country, but what is the least they could do; and, instead of attempting to assist diamond cutting here, their one idea has been to prevent it. We had an election promise from the Government that it would see that we would have diamond cutting established on a large scale in this country, not in any small way. The Minister of Finance certainly did not make any such promise, because he was in the extraordinarily delightful and singular position of having had to make no election promises at all. He had a pleasant walk-over in his constituency, and we are now faced with this position, that, because he made no promises, therefore, promises made by fellow Ministers, and by prominent men who belong to the party, have not to be fulfilled! I am sorry for that easy way to escape. At Kimberley we had the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Defence and a popular member of this House (Dr. Steyn), who told Kimberley people that they were going to have a diamond-cutting industry established there on a large scale almost immediately. With what cheers was that assurance received! I thought as I went out of that hall and saw the community so delighted—

That is two years ago, or nearly, and to-day there is one diamond cutter less in the country than there was then ; and, seeing that it would take a year before any agreement entered into with any cutters could be confirmed by this House, it is going to be one and a half more years at least before there can be any appreciable addition to the diamond cutters in the Union. That is the sacred promise of the Government and its fulfilment! Instead, Ministers listen to these specious arguments and to those who would still go on as they have gone on for years and years frightening governments and pointing out the awful danger to our revenue of taking the protected monopoly out of those greedy hands. We have the Diamond Control Bill passed last session. I regret very greatly that the Minister of Mines and Industries did not appoint the Diamond Control Board provided for in that Act, for this reason, that, by this time, he would have had three independent men who could have given him honest advice without any question of professional or personal advantage; but, unfortunately, to-day he must turn to the same sources for his information and advice which have always prevented our having any development of the kind asked for. He has to turn to one, true a very great expert in this country, whose name I mention with respect, because he is in his special line a great South African. Mr. Arend Brink, the official adviser to the Government. He has written a pamphlet to show how impracticable diamond cutting is in this country, although he points out that the cutting is worth £5,000,000 a year. He says in this pamphlet that it is—

To this gentleman, who is definitely committed to that opinion, the Minister turns for advice as to establishing a diamond cutting industry. Is Mr. Brink likely to tell the Minister of Finance that his pamphlet, which he wrote under the aegis of De Beers Company, is absolutely wrong? Is he likely to give himself the lie in regard to this precious pamphlet ? Certainly not. This is the poisoned source to which the Minister of Finance turns as he turns also to hon. friends opposite, for advice in regard to this industry. The writer of this pamphlet points out that a tariff protection of 40 per cent. on the export of rough stones is required to get diamond cutting properly established here. I agreed with him then as I do now. I have always said that that advice should have been taken, that Mr. Brink’s expert knowledge should have been acted on ten years ago, and we should have put on the 40 per cent. that he deemed an essential protective tariff. We, who have always advocated a big cutting industry, are responsible, not hon. members opposite, for the Minister of Finance getting 10 per cent. export duty now. When we started on this question in 1913, and got a special parliamentary special commission set up, that body recommended that cutting should be established on a large scale by a protective tariff. There was then only a registration impost of per cent. We got that raised to 5 per cent. export duty, and later increased to the 10 per cent., which returns nearly a million annually to the Treasury. In this we received no assistance from the diamond monopoly interests. No, quite the contrary. They opposed then as they do now. There is neither altruism or patriotism in the ranks of financiers connected with South Africa, as there is in the United States of America. At the bottom the Opposition has to some extent been purely political. I want the Minister to listen to this extract from the pamphlet ; it shows the spirit in which it is written—

And then it goes on to attack the Labour party and Socialists in venomous terms. It is to the gentleman who writes this the Minister goes for advice! When we come to the product itself, there is nothing but restriction. Why should South African cutters be restricted ? Why should they not be in the exact position of the licensed buyer, who can export where he likes, buy where he likes, and do as he likes, within the regulations? But our unfortunate cutter is severely circumscribed. We pleaded, to start with, that he should simply be treated as any other trader, able to deal freely with his product in the best market, and in the best way he can. But no, he was surrounded by all these drawbacks, so as practically to prevent—not assist—him in cutting. But we are a very short-sighted people. While we got £850,000 last year from diamonds, America obtained in duty £1,200,000 out of our gems. Every year that country gets more by taxation of our diamonds than we do ourselves. If the Minister had the courage to put on the 40 per cent. to secure cutting being established here, his Government would be in the position of getting more than America, and the wealthy ones in America would be paying our duty all the time. We have the opportunity of making the world pay for this luxury, and we are flinging it and his friends into the hands of the hon. gentleman opposite (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). As for £40,000,000 being put up, the hon. gentleman talks as if he and others were putting up that great sum. Recently he has shown himself rather unreliable in figures, and this globular sum is four times the sum required to finance the trade. It is like wool, or cotton, or hides, or any other commodity. Exports are drawn against, and the consumer pays for everything. So far as diamond cutting is concerned, we are now in the unfortunate position that before any agreement can be made for outside diamond cutters to establish themselves here, another year must elapse before it could be put before this House. So far from cutters being satisfied with the treatment they have received at the hands of the producers, I have letter after letter showing that they have been unable to buy at the price at which they should be able to purchase. This attempt to compel the syndicate to sell a series, as the hon. gentleman knows, is not worth the snap of a finger. When cutters did get rough stones, they found they could buy 10 per cent. cheaper in London than they could here. It is because the syndicate or trust does not want them sold here; he wants every diamond to be sent overseas. Our business is to produce these diamonds at the lowest possible cost, and hand them over as a monopoly, and meanwhile the hon. gentleman is frightening the Government with this terrible uncertainty of a precarious and easily injured trade. Diamond cutters claim that they should have an open trade, as elsewhere. They should have. Why not ? If the Government had the astute wisdom of the hon. gentleman opposite, they would put on 40 per cent. and say—

Then when diamond cutters come in under such protection, they would be established here as part of the consuming community. I have no sympathy whatever with the means adopted in this Bill of dealing with our diamond cutters. They asked for bread, and they are handed a stone.

I have given a stone.

They want bread as well as a stone. No, the hon. gentleman will neither give them bread or a stone. It is all very well his saying what he is going to do to assist diamond cutters. I know something about it. I have some experience which cost me some money.

That was in Roberts Victors, was it not? Why did you go out ?

I am quite willing to gratify the curiosity of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I went out because directors declined to publish the engineer’s report. While I was chairman of that company, cutters got every stone they wanted. They cut them beautifully, and found they could sell them in Paris, New York, or London at very remunerative prices. That was their crime! I hope the Government will stand on the side of the people, and not on the side of the big monopoly. I make one more appeal to the Government—

But I fear that any appeal I make will fall on deaf ears, for Ministers are not even listening, as they listened to the member for Kimberley.

The hon. member who has just spoken has made disparaging references to what he refers to as the possessors of foreign names. This is a tendency which, I regret to say, has also been apparent in remarks which have fallen from time to time from my colleague, the hon. member for Illovo, in dealing with what he has styled the Lithuanian question. I must say I wish to dissociate myself entirely from language of that kind.

So do I.

I am glad to think it is not part of the policy of hon. members on this side to support methods of that kind. An attempt was made by the hon. member to criticize some publication by Mr. Arend Brink prior to his becoming a member of the public service. The Minister, I know, will defend him against his attacks, in accordance with what is his duty to all members of the public service when similarly attacked. I am perfectly certain that Mr. Brink, like other members of the public service, subordinates his private views and opinions, whether they may be in order to render to the Government of the day the best service in his power. I do not think for one moment that the hon. member was justified in making these suggestions that Mr. Brink—a very highly respected South African indeed—would form any exception to the rule. I see a flaw in the machinery which prevents the Bill from being effective at all. In the Bill of 1919, a very important feature was that the determination of the compulsory selling price which might be made applicable to a transaction between a producer and a diamond cutter was based on the current market selling price. That, I take it, was the London market selling price, from which a deduction for selling expenses was made to the extent of per cent. Now the Minister departs from that, and goes on the basis of the price obtained by the producer. I take it that, seeing that the usual purchases of diamonds outside South Africa would be outside the Minister’s jurisdiction, the application of this Act will be confined to sales as between producer and diamond cutter. The Minister will remember, if you come to consider what the price obtained by the producer is, that it is arrived at on an average basis per carat. I ask the Minister how is he going to apply that to a single stone transaction? He will find himself in this difficulty, that he must apply to a single stone transaction the average price determined over sales of parcels sold over a period of at least three months, a price which can have no relation to the value of a stone picked out by a statutory purchaser, and which might be perhaps the best stone of a parcel. I cannot understand how the Minister proposes to get over the difficulty. In the 1919 Act the Minister has power how to settle disputes.

What is the use of the valuator then ?

The basis is entirely wrong. The Act contemplates, not that you should fix prices stone by stone, but on the basis of an average price obtained by the producer. We will see whether the Minister finds it as easy as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) thinks. Under the 1919 Act there was applied the provisions of the Cost of Living Commission Act, 1918, with regard to the observance of secrecy ; even the members of the board are bound to observe secrecy. Once you alter the basis of price from current market price to the prices obtained by the producer, and you allow the statutory purchaser to dispute what the price should be, then there must follow a disclosure as to what the producer is obtaining for his stones that he may sell elsewhere. The Minister under the Act must lay down the basis on which such a dispute can be determined. The cutter will press for information as to what is the actual basis of the prices obtained by the producer, and can in that way ascertain exactly the basis upon which the whole of his diamonds may have been realized by all the producers, and not the producer with whom he was dealing. This principle of allowing indiscriminate reference to the books of any particular producer or industry seems to me wrong, for how will the Minister prevent information of this kind beng broadcast? Unless there is a very clear and definite answer to these points, they seem to me to be good reason why this Bill should stand over for further consideration.

The hon. member who has just sat down seems to be very sensitive to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), and is one of the apostles of Mr. A. Brink. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) gave us some historical information of which the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) does not seem to be aware. The diamond industry is the peculiar home of the Jew. I was stating that the whole diamond industry has fallen into the hands of the people known as the Jews for historical reasons, and the report quoted by the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) gives the reason. That is what the hon. member was referring to and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) would not have found it so attractive, but for that reason, and the thing we have to fight to-day is the inroad that this historical fact has made in the settlement of the diamond-cutting industry in those countries mentioned in this report. I agree that the difficulty we have to-day is for the Government to get to the root of that industry. The hon. member for Kimberley, with the voice of the charmer, said—

And he incidentally said that that control amounted to £40,000,000 for five years. The control of the Diamond Syndicate is what he was referring to. The whole conflict of opinion in this House arises from that fact that the hon. member for Kimberley, in his position as controller of that industry, is making the whole of the profit of the syndicate on one side, while we want to see South Africa benefit by the shifting of the whole cutting industry to South Africa. And I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that unless we can shift the whole diamond cutting industry here, the Bill is virtually tinkering with the matter. The hon. member for Pretoria West has told us that the original Bill put forward was a Bill for the prevention of the diamond-cutting in this country. The clauses which the late South African party put in were purposely put in knowing that the object of bringing the diamond-cutting industry to this country would be wrecked by the insertion of these clauses. I go so far—although the hon. member for Kimberley has said something radical has been introduced in this Bill—to say that the clauses which the Minister proposes to introduce will not succeed in bringing the diamond-cutting to this country. The Bill is simply tinkering with the bigger subject. We want something much more radical if we are to shift the ground from under the hon. member for Kimberley, and the strong position they are entrenched in. The hon. member said that the Government must look at the loss of revenue that will be entailed in this export tax, and that the Minister must remember that that £850,000 was possibly in danger if a diamond-cutting industry came to this country. But what the hon. member for Kimberley did not tell the Minister was that if the cutting industry were brought to this country, the whole of our diamond output would be enhanced to about double its present value, and that South Africa would be richer by that amount. The question at stake is whether we are going to introduce legislation to bring this cutting industry to South Africa, and the Minister has told us that there is a divergence of opinion over this question. The Minister told us that the producer is very much against the introduction, of the cutting industry—of course he is—and that the only other alternative is a State cutting industry. If the Minister is convinced that he is not going to shift these people from their ground and get a diamond cutting industry unless we have a State cutting industry, then for heaven’s sake let us have that State cutting industry. But the ramifications which these people are surrounded with are so strong that I do not think the Minister is going to achieve his object by what be has put in this Bill. The measure taken by itself is full of good intentions, but the other side is out to see that these intentions are not fulfilled. The Minister dealt with the difficulties he had to cope with in that old Act, and which he is rectifying here. He said the most controversial subject was the taking of diamonds in series, and the hon. member for Kimberley told us that the National party, when in opposition, opposed this question. The hon. member for Kimberley loses sight of a large section of the producers namely the alluvial diggers, and if that is to be the only way in which we can save the cutting industry, then this question is not going to help us a bit. The question of series is just tinkering with it. It might assist the small cutter, but it is not going to help him to cut those diamonds as he expects to do. What I want to know from the Minister is why, in the amending Act, there is no provision made in regard to Clause 7 of the principal Act in regard to entering into agreements. The wording is so entrenched that the powers of the Minister to enter into agreements outside this Act are practically nil. I want to know from the Minister, seeing the overtures that have been made to the Government under this clause with a view to introducing a cutting industry on a large scale in this country, whether these negotiations have broken down ; whether absence or want of elasticity of the Minister has been the cause, or whether the Minister has not been satisfied that there has been an honest endeavour to bring cutting on a large scale to this country! We have from time to time been approached by people who have entered into negotiations with the Government, and after a large amount of trouble and expense, they have found it impossible to come to an agreement with the Government with regard to the introduction of this industry on a large scale. Does the Minister think it is futile trying to amend the Act ? Does he think the Act does not want amendment or does he think there has been no serious attempt made to have negotiations on a big scale in terms of the Act as laid down here ? The hon. member for Kimberley said that the object of this Bill was to bring the industry to South Africa and that he was afraid that we would not achieve that object. He based his whole argument on how detrimental it was going to be to the industry as established in Europe at the present time. In other words he looked at the matter from the foreign point of view and of maintaining the cutting in Europe where it is at present. He put forward all the difficulties and ramifications of the trade, and all the delicate handling and manipulation of the trade as arguments against its being brought here and said that we would disturb that delicate arrangement if the trade were brought here ; but let me point out that this is the very object that this Bill is aiming at, and which I think it is not going to achieve, and so far as I can see will never be achieved under this Bill. The hon. member has pleaded for the European industry. If there is one man who is in a position to assist in bringing a diamond cutting industry to South Africa it is the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), but we have not heard one word from him in praise of the measure, nor has he told us that he is prepared to bring the industry here. Instead of that he has been pleading the whole of the time for the European cutter against the South African cutter. He says that the ramifications of the trade are so big that if we tamper with it the whole structure may topple over. That is exactly what South Africa wants, so as to bring the industry here, and it would be very fortunate for South Africa if we could have, not only the cutting trade, but the attendant trades out here, so that we should have a thrifty and industrious population which would be a tremendous asset to us, so that South Africa should be the diamond centre and not Amsterdam, London or New York. The hon. member’s argument is against the series question, the result of which he says would be that the mines would suffer tremendous hardship and loss. If that were sound the hon. member might have suggested that the producers themselves would start cutting here, and I would remind him that the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) told us on the eve of an election that De Beers were going to bring 2,000 cutters to South Africa. Where are they ? There is one other question I would like to ask, and that is in regard to the appointment of the board. The idea of the 1919 Act was that the Minister should be assisted by a technical board, whose functions were definitely set out in the Act, the suggestion being that the board would be in a position to assist the Government. I asked a question on this subject on March 16th last, and the question and the reply will be found in “Hansard.” Does the Minister think the board was that intended to be established under the Act, or should it be a board of technical people who could advise the Minister in regard to the progress of the diamond-cutting industry ? It really depends on the board whether the industry makes progress or not. The board has never been able to give the Government any valuable assistance ; at all events, I have never seen any report by the board, nor has it made any suggestions as to the future policy of the Government in regard to this matter. If the Minister had carried out the spirit of the Act and had a really competent board to advise him, there would not have been these impressions in the country in regard to the Government’s intentions. People are under the impression that the Government has fallen under the sway of the hon. member for Kimberley and his friends, and that the Government has no honest intention to bring the Act to fruition. I hope that impression is wrong and that the Minister will assist us in getting rid of that impression, but the only way to do that is to see that the industry is brought here, and that the benefits of that industry will be reaped by South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time ; House to go into committee on 7th June.

Before you put the amendments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few words still to the Minister of Railways and Harbours to accept the amendment which I have on the paper, and which is entirely in support of the co-operative spirit that exists in the present shipping control board, and which we are all very anxious and the fruit farmers are anxious to see.

Some fruit farmers.

I will refer to that a little later, because I understand that not alone hon. members opposite, but the Minister of Railways, has made the same statement. I would like, in support of the amendment and the necessity of maintaining the co-operative spirit, to be allowed to read to the House the reasoned views of the late Henry C. Wallace, secretary of agriculture to the United States. This was embodied in a communication to the president of the U.S.A., and published immediately following his death under the heading, “Study of Co-operation in Agricultural America ”—

Here we are to have Government domination, and I am not altogether certain that it is going to be free from commercial interests. What does Mr. Hoover say ?—

Let me give you an even greater authority than the secretary for agriculture of the United States and Mr. Hoover—

This statement goes on further, replying to an interjection about diamonds—

Then follow these passages—

Is it possible to add any words of mine which would impress upon the House the advisability of accepting the amendment which I have placed upon the paper, because the words I have just read fell eloquently from the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he introduced the Fruit Shipping Control Bill last year ; and I think even now, though he has refused to answer questions put to him several times during the various stages through which this Bill has passed, he should tell us what are the reasons and what are the influences that have actuated him to depart from the policy which he pleaded for in this House and another place one year ago. True, the eloquent words I have read were spoken in this House on the 16th April, 1925, and we are now, I believe, ah the 6th June, 1926. It would be very interesting to the House, to the country and to the fruit farmers to know the reason and the influences which have been at work that have caused my hon. friend to completely change his policy. I am sorry the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) is not here. He spoke on the previous stage of this Bill, and when my hon. friend, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), said he was a small citrus grower in the Transvaal and was associated with the co-operative organization, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rood), who represents that constituency, deliberately denied the statement which had been made by my hon. friend. The Minister of Railways seemed to support that proposal, and the Minister gave the committee to understand that the majority of co-operative organizations in the Transvaal were of the same opinion. We were then discussing the White River co-operative organization, where there are thousands of citrus trees planted. I was surprised to find this only this morning in looking through the “Cape Times ”—true, hon. members do not always take for granted contributions in the “Cape Times ”—and I will give the Minister an opportunity of denying whether he had not these resolutions in his pocket—

Had the Minister this resolution when he made this statement to the House yesterday and the day before ?

What statement ?

A statement practically supporting the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) that the majority of growers in the Transvaal were entirely in favour of this Bill. The Minister, in fair play, when he had that telegram in his pocket, should have disillusioned the hon. member for Barberton if he considered he had made a mistake. This is the resolution—

That has been my argument and the argument of members on this side from the first day this Bill was read a second time. Will the Minister listen ? This carries just as much the weight of the growers as any wire-pulling telegrams he has received. The resolution goes on—

Is that not what we did when we urged the Minister to let the Bill go to a select committee ?—

I read this to show that we on this side who have been accused of speaking for purposes of opposition and wire-pulling are not alone in contending it is a fatal mistake to depart from the principles of co-operation. When you have built up, with great difficulty, a fruit exchange which has roped in 95 per cent, of the citrus and deciduous exporters, it is an extremely wrong thing, by a step of this sort, to largely undermine that exchange, and to hinder the good work it is doing. It is in the interests of the fruit exchange, of co-operation, and of the producers of this country, that I even now appeal to my hon. friend to accept a resolution of this character, to place the control board in the hands of a majority of the fruit exchange, who represent the fruit growers. If the Minister will do that, then there will be no objection to the Bill going through its stages. If he is not prepared to do that, I maintain that to pass the Bill as it is at present will be striking a death-blow at cooperation, and will be the worst day’s work you could possibly do for the fruit farmers of this country. There have been efforts overground and underground to undermine the fruit exchange. I am not going into the reasons for that, but I am extremely sorry to see that if this Bill goes through in the manner the Minister proposes, you will be undermining the fruit exchange and doing much to break up an organization which, if supported as it ought to be by the State, and allowed to flourish, will, within a reasonable time, represent in this country a fruit exchange which will be able to take its place alongside the Californian fruit exchange, which is an object lesson to co-operators throughout the world. I believe this exchange, with a little sympathy, would very soon be on an equally sound and stable basis. I move—

(2) The board shall consist of an independent chairman appointed by the Governor-General and six representative members, of whom two shall be representatives of the citrus fruit industry, two shall be representatives of the deciduous fruit industry and two shall be representatives of the egg and poultry industry, such representatives being in each case appointed by the central co-operative organization which controls or represents the particular industry concerned ; Provided that if at any time the Governor-General is satisfied that the quantity of any other kind of perishable product exported from the Union justifies the addition to the board of representatives of that kind of perishable product, he may call upon the central co-operative organization which controls or represents that particular product to appoint two representative members of the industry which produces or deals with the aforesaid perishable product to be members of the board, and upon such nomination being duly made the persons so nominated shall be and become additional members of the board. Such board shall sit as a full board when required for the common interests and in panels when the interests of any one or more industries are concerned.

(3) The chairman shall be appointed for such period and upon such conditions as the Governor-General may determine. The representative members shall each be appointed for a period of twelve months at a time.

I second. I want to say a few words in regard to the support which the Bill is said to have received. I have a telegram which says that the White River and Karino societies disapprove of the Bill. The Karino Society wired Mr. Rood to vote against the Bill, so that is very clear. Without doubt there are the largest number of trees at White River in the eastern part of the Transvaal. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) was entirely wrong in quoting the support of that part of the world The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) has also made a tremendous fuss about the support in his constituency. I was informed by a friend at lunch to-day that Mr. Sarembock is very strongly opposed to the Bill. It just shows that the information of my hon. friend about Ceres is absolutely wrong. I did not ask for the information ; it was given me quite gratuitously.

I said last time, and I say again, that the large majority of the fruit growers and exporters in my constituency are in favour of this section. That is, of the Government appointing three members of the board of control. I do not know why the names of my constituents should be mentioned here. I do not wish to discuss the respective merits of my constituents. Every fruit grower at Ceres, who has considered it worth his while to communicate with me is in favour of this provision. One large grower who exported 400 tons of fruit during last season, and who had 4,000 boxes in the “Edda” personally informed me that he was in favour of the three members being appointed by the Government. I telephoned to Mr. Sarembock and, unfortunately. I was informed that he was in Cape Town. I endeavoured to see him at his hotel, but I could not as he was out. He has not taken any steps to communicate his disapproval of this section to me. As regards the evidence given by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that is hearsay, so he must not take it amiss from me if I say that on that kind of evidence I cannot change my attitude in this committee. That is evidence that would be ruled out in a court of law. I repeat, as far as the fruit growers of Ceres are concerned, a large majority of them are in favour of this. The small farmers are all satisfied that this is the best kind of control that they can get—independent control.

They have the existing Bill.

My hon. friend gets very excited because control is taken away from the few members of the fruit exchange. Let me tell him there are people who have no confidence in the representatives of the exchange on that board as it was constituted last year. I do not say they are justified. There are a number of people who have more confidence in a board appointed by the Government than in a board nominated by the exchange. It is said they have carried on in such a way that people are a little bit suspicious of them. There are rumours about the country. I have not been able to verify them.

That is not evidence.

Leaving Mr. Sarembock out, with the exception of Captain Taylor, all these big exporters of Ceres are in favour of this, and they have exported thousands of tons ; of the fruit exported from Table Bay about one-third comes from Ceres.

I wish to refer hon. members to portion of Standing Order 62. [Order read.] The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) read a telegram which specifically referred to a debate in the House this session, and I hope hon. members will keep this standing order in mind.

It seems to me that the Minister owes me an explanation. When this Bill was debated, I, as a member of the White River Co-operative Company, made a statement that my company was against these two proposals, and the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) gave me the lie direct, and said that was not so. The hon. member owes his return largely to members of the citrus growers of Barberton. When the Minister replied. I believe, he read a telegram of Captain Elphick.

I never did that. I referred you to your own constituents. I did not then read it.

Either the Minister or the hon. member for Barberton read it.

The Minister read it.

On the 29th May the Minister had a telegram in his pocket from the White River Co-operative Company telling him that they opposed it. I ask him whether he actually had that telegram ? In face of this letter to the newspaper, it appeared that the hon. gentleman had that telegram in his pocket. How comes it that the hon. member for Barberton and the Minister did not tell us that they had received this wire? I think the hon. member and the Minister owe me an apology for giving me the lie direct. On top of all that comes this telegram.

The hon. member must not refer to any telegram with reference to anything that has taken place in the debate.

Captain Elphick wires that no such co-operative society as the Minister quoted exists.

I never quoted it.

The impression all this makes on me is that the Minister is not in touch with the fruit growers of this country. During the all-night sitting we said that the fruit growers did not know what is going on, and here we find out that prominent fruit growers have to wait until the “Star” comes to hand through the post to see what is going on. They have not been consulted by the Government. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) tells us that there are sinister rumours about that this board has not the confidence of the country. I see a leading article in “Die Burger” states that the strongest opposition comes from a small group of Western Province fruit growers. Is this correct from the information we have had from the hon. member foi Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and this telegram? Look at the telegram received from the White River Co-operative Association, in my view the most prominent citrus growing co-operation in the Transvaal.

Have they exported 400 tons in one season ?

They are very rapidly reaching that condition. The most important citrus co-operative society in the Cape is also against it. I see “Die Burger” leader is headed—

What is behind it all ? We have heard a good many rumours as to what is behind this all, and “Die Burger” directly hints that the black hand of the Unionists is behind it all.

Big interests—the Union-Castle Company.

Yes, we would like to know what is behind this Bill. It seems something more than the interests of the fruit growers. We hear rumours that the interests of a certain big financier have been considered. “Die Burger” must not come to us for an answer, but go to the Pact Government. So it comes to this—it is pretty plain, and must be to the country—that the Minister is forcing through the Bill without having got into touch with a large number of the fruit-growing interests, and dead against the wishes of a large number of the fruit growers. When the Minister told us that the fruit growers were with him—he quite sincerely told us—it is quite clear he was labouring under a misapprehension, and that they are not with him.

interjected a remark.

I do not know what that sapient remark has to do with it. How many telegrams does the hon. member consider are sufficient proof ? I think there is an accumulation of evidence to show that the Minister has acted in too great a hurry over this matter, and that this Bill ought to stand over.

Mr. Speaker—

Another fruit grower!

I can assure the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) that I know quite as much about fruit growing as he does, and I think that is a very modest suggestion to make. The hon. member for Ceres has made a great point about the want of confidence of the small grower in the fruit exchange. I wonder if the hon. member has pointed out to the small fruit growers that, at any rate, they can get rid of the executive of the fruit exchange if they continue to be incompetent, but as regards the board which is instituted under Clause 1, there is no method by which these members can be moved by all the fruit growers, small or large. That is the real argument against having a board of this kind. The fruit growers at the present time have the control of their industry, and if they lose confidence in the executive of the exchange they can remove them. But in this case there is no method by which the control board, however great their faults, may be got rid of. I ask the Minister to reconsider Clause 1. If he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) he puts himself in a very strong position. The fruit growers will then have control of their own industry, and if they make a mistake in asking for this control, the Minister can tell them that they have nobody to blame but themselves ; whereas if he adheres to his clause, they will have absolute justice in every complaint they make against his department, and it seems to me the height of absurdity for him to interfere with the property of these people. If the Minister were to accept this amendment, the Bill would go through without trouble. From a practical point of view, I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept an amendment like this, giving these people the right to control their own industry, It seems to me that in this House we are getting into the habit of passing very bureaucratic laws, taking individual rights from every section of the community, and we are now going to touch the result of a man’s own labour.

When the Minister replies, I hope he will realize that the bulk of the objection to this Bill is concerned with Clause 1, and there is considerable anxiety and interest not to say curiosity, about the proposed personnel of this board. Undoubtedly, whether it is justifiable or not, there is a good deal of unrest throughout the country over this matter, and if the Minister is determined to put the Bill through in its present form, I think it is due to the public that he should announce in this House, before it goes through, who is to be chairman and who the members are to be of this board, and also the terms on which they are to be appointed ; their remuneration, and their period of office, and whether they are to be whole-time officers. I was unable to follow the remarks of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), but I think I am doing him no wrong when I say he allowed the House to believe that there was considerable dissatisfaction with this board.

No; with the representatives of the exchange.

The hon. member will be glad to know that his doubts are not shared by the Minister, who said on the 23rd May that he thought hon. members on both sides would agree that the board of control, both chairman and members, in connection with the work they did last year was good, and that the Government were justified in asking the House last year to create such a board of control. He further stated that he was glad to say that the co-operation between these exchanges and the board of control was satisfactory.

Ten per cent, of the fruitgrowers are members of co-operative societies.

I ask him where he got the information.

I got it from the fruit grower.

Evidently this source of information differs from that of the Minister, and if the hon. member wants to make a case he had better say the same thing as the Minister, whether it is true or not. The situation is bad enough as it is, and it will be aggravated if the country is kept in suspense as to the composition of the board and the possibility that their business will not be handled in a satisfactory way.

I regret it is not possible for me at this stage to announce the personnel of the board.

You won’t put the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) on.

The hon. member can leave that to the Government.

The terms of appointment ?

All that will be considered when the Bill is passed—a Bill which hon. members opposite are doing their utmost not to see passed. That being so, the Government takes the responsibility. We will have to face Parliament next year, I hope, when hon. members will have had the benefit of eight or nine months experience of the working of the Bill, and they can say whether we have gone wrong. The Government is satisfied that the measure is a sound one. I disagree with hon. members opposite.

I think you could tell us some of the personnel now.

If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) would only endeavour to be a little more responsible in his statements it would assist matters. He made the statement that I have never informed the House or the Committee that the co-operative societies were against this Bill. Is that correct ? Hon. members know that on the first occasion the Bill was before the House I took the House fully into my confidence and said that I had received telegrams from all parts of the country from co-operative societies, protesting against the terms of the Bill. Does the hon. member deny that ?

When you discussed Barberton you had this telegram in your pocket and allowed the statement of the hon. member to go forward with your approval.

I will deal with that later. I am dealing with the first of the hon. member’s mis-statements I went further and I read to the House a telegram that had been sent by the Exchange to all the co-operative societies, and indicated to the House that wrong information had been given to the co-operative societies, on which they framed their resolutions of protest.

Are these the wirepulling telegrams ?

I never referred to wire pulling telegrams. I read from a statement made by the chairman of the Citrus Co-operative Society at Rustenburg, who is also a member of the control board. I referred to the interview he had given to the press.

You read it with great gusto.

I certainly gave it as very important information. The fact that a member of the Fruit Control Board and chairman of an important co-operative society expressed his views so definitely surely is of interest to the House. Let me deal with his next point, the position of growers in Barberton. I never referred to any particular telegram in the House. I have never given information to the House which I am not prepared to prove if necessary. I have never referred to the telegram received from Capt. Elphic. On the 25th May I received the following telegram from him in two capacities, as chairman of the South African Co-operative Produce Exchange, and chairman of the Barberton District Farmers’ Union—

I am going to adhere to the principles of the Bill. In regard to the statement of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) irresponsible as such statements usually are namely that certain influential interests are behind this Bill, he knows that he is making a statement he cannot prove, and not only that, but he knows that there is not a shadow of any reason for making that statement except in order, possibly, to make political capital. I have always stated to members opposite, if you have criticisms against the terms of the Bill I am prepared to discuss them on the merits. We have had valuable suggestions from the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) and I was glad to adopt some of them, but to say that the Bill is not in the interests of the fruit growers, or is not acceptable to the vast majority of the fruit growers), is to make a statement which is not borne out by the facts. I cannot possibly accept the amendment.

Question put: That sub-sections (2) and (3), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, because we are giving the board very important power. The amendment will make all the board’s actions subject to the Minister.

I second the amendment. If the board makes mistakes we ought to be able to place the responsibility on the Minister.

I regret I cannot accept the amendment. The board must take the responsibility. Surely it is not suggested that every time the board enters into a contract with a ship owner it should consult the Minister!

Amendment put and negatived.

On Clause 4,

I move, to add the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (2)—

A very important matter is involved here. Something must be done to meet the cases of men who have made forward contracts. The board should not be able to alter a contract. If a man has contracted to deliver eggs in London but the board says they must be landed at Liverpool, the skipper might be involved in a heavy loss.

seconded the amendment.

I have given every consideration to the amendment, but I regret I cannot accept it. I have referred to the Australian and New Zealand Acts and I find they exclude only contracts which were in existence at the time of the passing of the Act. Even if I accepted the amendment it would be unworkable, because the board might allot space to a shipper and then find that another exporter has made a forward contract and asks for that space. The export of eggs only begins about November, so that I do not think any contracts will be in existence now. I will go into the matter and if necessary insert the necessary amendment in another place.

Amendment put and negatived.

On the amendment in Clause 8,

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 11,

I move—

1. (2) On or before the 31st day of December in every year the board shall submit, in a form described by the Minister—
   1. (a) to the Minister a detailed estimate of the expenditure to be incurred by the board in the ensuing calendar year ; and
   2. (b) to the Minister of Agriculture an estimate of the proportion of such expenditure which is to be charged against a particular product.
2. (3) The Minister, if he approves of the estimate referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2), shall convey such approval in writing to the board.
3. (4) Save under the written authority of the Minister, no expenditure not provided for in an estimate approved by the Minister in terms of sub-section (3) shall be incurred by the board.

This sets out the object which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) suggested.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted ; third reading on 7th June.

Surely my hon. friend, the Minister, is not going on with a Bill of this kind at this stage of the session.

Certainly! One gets rather tired of iteration of this kind. We will sit another three weeks, if necessary.

Tempers are getting a little ruffled. You must have patience to endure the load.

We have got the patience.

At the risk of offending my hon. friend, I want to point out that with a thin House like this—there is not even a quorum—to go on with important business is little less than scandalous.

Do you want to prorogue?

No; what we want is to report progress on this Bill and not take it this session. It is too late in the session to do it. It is a perfect scandal to go on with important business of this kind at this period of the session. We want the country to take note of this. If there is anyone who knows anything about this reserved minerals development, it is the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), and he ought to support me.

I am surprised at the hon. member using such a pretext. This measure has been before the country right from the beginning of the session. It is a most important measure, and it is one that was drawn up by the late Government. The country will be more dissatisfied by having it delayed than by having it brought forward at this juncture. I want to ask the hon. member to be reasonable. The members interested in this measure are all here, and discussion will be carried on accordingly. It is a measure that is overdue, and it has been anxiously awaited in the country. Any delay will have a serious reflection on the country.

May I point out to the Minister that this is the end of the second week in which we have started our deliberations at 10.30 in the morning, and in some cases gone deep into the night, and once into the early hours ? I have no recollection of such a thing ever having happened before in this Parliament or in the Cape Parliament that preceded it. That we have started at 10.30 in the morning almost at the end of the session is a fact.

Does the right hon. member move to report progress and ask leave to sit again ?

Yes, I move—

For what purpose did we sit in the mornings? Simply to clear up legislation already dealt with, and largely for the purpose of awaiting interchanges of messages from another place.

Don’t complain about that. We told you you need not sit at 10.30. You had the option. It was at your request.

My hon. friend must not get like that towards the end of the session. There was a period of time when the Minister of Finance won golden opinions from all sorts of people. He should not throw them aside so soon as he is doing. It is not nice ; it is not becoming ; it is not his usual procedure.

Is the right hon. member in order in discussing anything outside this clause ?

The right hon. member has moved that I report progress.

The hon. member is also getting tired and unable to follow the proceedings. He is exhausted by that great exhortation which he delivered just before the House adjourned. Since that time he must have been slumbering serenely. He is really supporting my argument. I see both Ministers are now smiling; they have recovered their equanimity. Unless you mean to sit for another week—to which I have no objection—there is no good in keeping the House going on with legislation which will take some considerable time to deal with, especially as it has to go to another place. I think I am right in saying that the Government have had a great deal of consideration from this side of the House.

Oh!

I hear the charming voice of the member for Graaff-Reinet. “You have waked me too soon; let me slumber again ”—there was a sleepy sound about it.

When the Prime Minister, 14 days ago, asked the House to sit in the mornings, everybody understood he had previously made a statement that Parliament would be prorogued by the end of May or in the first few days of June.

He said to-morrow.

You cannot prorogue to-morrow and go on with all these things. That is my point, and the point of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). It is really wearing members out, and making a farce of the whole business.

It is quite true the Prime Minister informed the House that he hoped to finish at the end of May or in the first week of June. Well, that is tomorrow, but of course we did not anticipate the sort of opposition to measures which we have received. Since then, however, it has become evident. On Monday last the Prime Minister said we would not sit in the mornings unless the leader of the Opposition made a request that we should do so. We have not had one sitting since then except at the express wish of the Opposition. Why should the right hon. member bring this up now ? Every single day we have had morning sittings, it was on the express wish of and with the consent of the leader of the Opposition.

I think my hon. friend is wrong. I do not think that the Minister of Finance was in the House when the Prime Minister was making his statement—he made that statement because his conscience was pricking him. Having asked the House to consent to sit on mornings, they kept us until 6 o’clock on the morning of the following day. If the House sits after 11 p. m. and the leader of the Opposition asks him (the Prime Minister), he does not feel himself justified in sitting the next morning. The Minister must remember that it is perfectly true there was considerable discussion, but this was due to the fact that while the morning sittings were called to deal with absolutely necessary measures, the Government introduced two or three contentious Bills, and we are not going to do our duty and discuss them thoroughly when also having morning sittings. If my hon. friend talks about proroguing to-morrow, it is no use going on.

I think that we as a party, are very keen on seeing this particular Bill through, and as the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) said, it is an important Bill, but the Government has shown very little conception of that fact. On what the Government thought was to be the last day of the session, they bring forward an extremely important Bill, which, as it affects the daily lives of thousands of citizens, is as important as any Bill brought forward. There are no fewer than 13 pages of amendments on the Order Paper, and I ask you, how do you expect this House adequately to deal with an involved Bill like this, and one on which the Minister himself has tabled no fewer than eight pages of amendments ?

They have been tabled for weeks and weeks.

For months and months. The first amendments were tabled on page 300 of the Order Paper, which takes us back to the 8th March. The Government has shown a poor conception of its duties towards the interests of the settlers, bringing this Bill forward in a depleted House. There are many members who have settler constituents ; and at more than the eleventh hour this Bill is introduced. It is a Bill initiated by the South African party, and I protest against the way in which the Government has dealt with it—it was read a second time about March, and the committee stage is in June—surely that is a curious way of dealing with a Bill affecting something like 30,000 human beings. Where has the Bill been in the meanwhile, and why has it not been before the House before ? I hope the Government will be able to put it through. But a mere glance at the amendments is enough to frighten one. Everyone in the House is feeling very jaded after a weary week, but we are quite prepared to sit another fortnight.

We do not want your assistance—we shall see that it goes through with or without your assistance.

I am sorry to hear the Minister say so. It is a Bill we drafted ourselves, and to that extent our assistance has already been given.

You say you initiated the Bill—what opposition have you to it now ?

I take the strongest exception to the way in which the Government is dealing with the Bill.

Where are your objections ?

They are tabled.

Move them.

How can I, when this is the first committee stage after three months ? Don’t make any mistake—I am going to move my amendments. I am afraid that this Bill may suffer shipwreck in another place, owing to lack of time. The Minister of Finance seems to be in a very ungrateful mood this afternoon.

You must not expect gratitude in this world.

A very skilful egg-dance! The hon. member is very anxious to have this Bill through and he is wasting time in expressing his anxiety that another place may offer difficulties. [No. quorum.] The hon. member is stressing the importance of this measure. Of course the longer these amendments have been on the Order Paper in connection with an important Bill like this, the more time hon. members have had to digest their significance. As the hon. member says he framed this Bill, I had every right to anticipate there would be no opposition, but it seems to me that hon. members have come forward with a new grievance, that they are jaded and exhausted. I thought their chief grievance was that we were unduly pressing legislation.

Undoubtedly.

The Prime Minister indicated, some days ago, that we are willing to give reasonable time. Only last night I was asked to agree to reporting progress, on the distinct understanding that this measure would be resumed to-day.

The Minister accuses me of doing an egg-dance. I want to see this Bill go through ; but what the Minister does not explain is, why this Bill, which was introduced in March, is only brought forward again now.

There was never any intention of carrying it forward to next session.

Surely it is playing with us to say they kept it over all this time to give us time to absorb all this. That is not the real answer. I am afraid the Government forgot all about it. If the Government had confined themselves to legislation like this, instead of other showy legislation, it would have been better.

Let us get on with it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) is most unfeeling. All know of the unfortunate accident that occurred to the Minister. He is the last one to appeal for consideration in regard to that ; but we sympathize with him. He was away for some months, and had a very narrow escape from death, and we all appreciate the way in which he has stuck to his work. In regard to the Bill having been on since March, I can say that the Minister of Defence was taking the portfolio of the Minister of Mines and Industries, and when we asked him if he would bring on this Bill and other matters, he very fairly said it was very awkward indeed for him to press questions in the absence of the Minister of Mines. Under the circumstances, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) might show a little kindlier feeling and be more generous to the Minister. It is overstepping the bounds of courtesy for a gentleman of his position, a former Minister, and it is up to us to say that we appreciate what the Minister has done under very difficult circumstances indeed, and hon. members of the Opposition might show their appreciation also by doing their best to push this measure through this session.

Motion to report progress put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I have tabled an amendment which, I think, is vital to this Bill, viz.—

The effect of the clause is that Government settlers on Crown land shall be placed in exactly the same position in regard to minerals as any ordinary landowner in the country. I wish to confine my remarks more particularly to the Transvaal, where the bulk of the settlers are, and where greater mineral development has taken place. Up to 1923, practically every farm alienated by the Government was given out, plus mineral rights. Nothing was withheld.

This amendment is out of order. I am afraid I cannot accept it. I must refer the hon. member to Rule 119. This amendment would deprive the Crown of certain rights in respect of alienated Crown land. I cannot put it to the committee without the consent of the Governor-General.

My amendment has been on the table since March 5th, and it is rather rough to be told after three months that it is out of order. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) will be in the same position.

The hon. member can advance his reasons against the clause, but I cannot accept the amendment.

My objection to Clause 2 is that it does not go far enough. I was referring to the Transvaal, and I would say that it was only in Lord Milner’s time that this innovation was introduced, that land should henceforth be given out ex mineral rights. The result, in my opinion, is that the Government in retaining the mineral rights, is merely holding back a very negligible asset ; and will retard mineral development which, I think, will best take place as the result of private enterprise. Most of the mineral development of the Transvaal has come about owing to the fact that the mineral rights went with the ground. Clause 2 recognizes the fact that there is an anomaly, and that Government should at least have something of these mineral rights. That is the origin of the whole Bill.

“ Something” is very substantial.

I agree with you, and the settlers will be very grateful, but it is not enough. Why should a man, who took up land prior to 1903, get full mineral rights, and a settler receive less than his richer neighbour ? There is no reason why we should not put these men on exactly the same footing as other owners. It will do the Government no harm, but it will tend to promote mineral development. Another reason for the amendment is that it would simplify matters in respect of the mineral lands in the different provinces. The Minister has tabled a number of amendments which are intended to bring that into effect.

Why didn’t you provide for this in the Bill you say you initiated ?

The Mines Department pointed out various technical troubles, and they made me hold my hand, and then the temporary aberration of the electorate deprived me of the power of dealing with the matter.

It is not a temporary aberration.

The Mines Department pointed out the very difficulties the Minister has since seen and has tabled amendments upon. My amendment simply says that in the particular province in which a settler lives he shall receive the full mineral rights to which an ordinary landowner is entitled. I fail to see why this should not be done. The only argument that could be used against it is—

My answer is that Government is not surrendering anything worth while. In the first place the Government has surrendered to the public by far the greater amount of the mineral rights and by giving these few remaining mineral rights to settlers, the Government will not be surrendering anything tangible. The Government’s interest in mineral development is the added wealth, population and development which follow the discovery and working of minerals, and the Government can secure these advantages for more effectively by handing over the mineral rights to the public than by keeping them locked up. The Government has given a very valuable concession, but I say it is a pity to spoil the ship for a ha’pporth of tar. If that is not done, the settler will be left with the grievance that he has been differentiated against.

You could have framed a Bill with one clause, cancelling the reservation of minerals to the State. Why didn’t you do that ?

We were still burdened with technical objections by the Mines Department. Another point is that if my amendment is passed you can do away with the major portion of the Bill as it stands, with the exception of the schedule safeguarding mineralized areas. Cannot the Minister get the Governor-General’s consent to an amendment of this description ?

I support the principle that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), but whether Clause 2 is the right place to bring it forward I do not know. That is the reason why I suggest that we should bring this forward in Clause 6.

Won’t you be faced with the same ruling ?

I don’t know. I am not concerned with the ruling just now. We are asking the Government to remunerate the settler on settlement ground for the mineral development on his ground. Since 1903 a distinction has been drawn between settlement ground and private ground in the different provinces. Subsequently, ground which has been bought for settlement has been given out with full mineral rights. If this Bill goes through as it is now, we are creating a very difficult and involved Act to deal with a small class of people in a very restricted way. The Bill lays down for the settlers that, the minerals being reserved to the Crown, the Government now will allow them certain remuneration for the development of those minerals, but it is also laid down under the Settlement Ordinance that Agriculture, which has priority prevents any inroad by mineral development. The principle, however, is that as long as a man wants to farm, no mining development is going to interfere with his farming project. What the settler says to-day is—

I am prepared to recede from the position as far as the agricultural part of my holding is concerned, provided I am put in a position to continue my settlement somewhere else. This is highly necessary because in the Transvaal when proclamation takes place all surface rights become defunct and the whole of the rights accrue to the mineral owner. According to the Transvaal law, the mineral owner then steps in. The Government proposes to remunerate the settler for having consented to allow discovery to take place, in Clauses 7 and 8, not as an individual holder of private land is dealt with in every other province, but to give him a mining lease. That lease shall be laid down on the following conditions: (1) that the Mining Leases Board shall determine what area of that land is going to be and (2) it she determine what royalty you are going to pay to the Government for that particular lease. In granting stretches of country to settlers where settlement hitherto had not taken place, the Government did not attach any importance as far as the minerals were concerned. Under the Cape Act there is no provision made for base metals at all. Under the hon. member’s amendment the settler in the Cape Province will receive no remuneration for base metals.

The private owner in the Cape Province will not, either.

No, because no provision is made in the Cape in regard to base metals. On the question of base metals, it may be argued that the State is surrendering something of value to them and they are getting no consideration for it. The attitude taken up by all Governments in the past has been to give the private owner one-fifth and the balance accrues to the State. That shows us that the State considers that it is necessary for the owner to open up that ground so that the State shall immediately come into possession of four-fifths of the mineral wealth. In regard to base metals in the Transvaal, it has been laid down that the benefit that accrues to the State from the development of base metals is quite sufficient to compensate the State in an indirect way rather than the State should take anything from it. The Government has always been prepared to take its revenue indirectly from the development of base metals. In the case of the Cape it has not been thought necessary to differentiate as far as base metals are concerned. I would like to ask the Minister whether he won’t consider—because the difference is so small and the benefits that are going to accrue to the State are so great—the advisability of altering the system of remuneration to the settler from this question of the lease which they propose to substitute—[Time limit.]

I see the hon. member and I are practically at one. I understand you to rule both his and my amendments out of order, Mr. Chairman. Under those circumstances I would like the Minister to understand that sooner than wreck this Bill I would accept Clause 6 as it stands. At any rate, it is better for the settler to take the very substantial concession he is getting under Clause 6 than to get nothing at all. I see the Minister has an amendment on Clause 6. I presume as the Governor-General’s consent has not been obtained to this it is also out of order, and also a great many of the other amendments. It is a very awkward position. I would like the Minister to consider whether he will not give us a promise that he will try and amplify this Bill next year.

You will have to recognize the situation as created by the Ordinance of 1903. I infer you say that that should never have occurred.

I think it was unnecessary. In Lord Milner’s time there was the idea— which is still held by some people—that if the State keeps the mineral rights they have something of tremendous value. It was on that assumption that the law of 1903 was introduced. I do not hold that view. I hold the State derives very little benefit frem reserving mineral rights ; I believe mineral rights ought to be individualized instead of socialized. If I cannot put my amendment I hope the Minister will simply put the Bill through as it stands, but I ask him to give us some undertaking as to how he looks on our amendments and whether he is prepared to introduce amplifying amendments next year and give us what we want.

What people are concerned about largely is that under section 2 exclusive rights for prospecting are given to the owner. I, with others, am concerned with having a wider opportunity for prospecting in this country. The Minister of Defence, I think, stated that this clause would really and effectively open up a large area of land which otherwise would not be prospected at all. Under those circumstances, of course, one would not object, and I think the Minister said he purposed bringing forward a much wider prospecting law, which we should have in this land of very great mineral wealth. I hoped the Bill would have been brought forward at the same time that other Bills dealing with mineral rights were brought forward. I hope the Minister has not lost sight of the necessity for extending opportunities for prospecting. I would just like to read portions of a letter from a very prominent prospector, one of the most successful in the country, dealing with this question under consideration. He says—

These are the remarks of a prominent prospector who is on the side of throwing open prospecting as far as possible. I am rather concerned in that Government appear to have now made it more limited and restrictive. I suppose there is no way out of the present position with the settlements, but it is regrettable ; and I hope the Minister will remember that we are looking forward to his promise being kept, and that at an early date. The people are expecting it, and prospectors deserve every encouragement in view of the good work they have done for the country in the past.

The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down shows to what a substantial extent we have met the settler. He gets the exclusive right of prospecting. With regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), I am quite willing to consider the matter, although I must tell him that I have already considered it. In any case these amendments are not in order at this stage, but I will give the matter some further consideration and see what I can do. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move–

My attitude is that the proviso shall stand. The intention of the printed amendment was to omit the proviso,

Will I be in order to move to omit the proviso? I want to know on what principle we are going with the bond holder who has to get special notice from the owner of the property. Surely the bond holder, as bond holder, has all the security and protection he requires, and why should we hamper the owner of this before he can allow any prospecting? What has the bond-holder got to do with the prospecting, and to exercise this restrictively gripping right condition? It is one of those vexatious little restrictions which appears unnecessary, and I hope the Minister will consent to the cancellation of the proviso. I move as an amendment—

The answer to the objection raised by the hon. member is that you have to do with a peculiar state of affairs under this Bill. Unless you make these provisions, if the Government resumes the land held or occupied by a settler, the State is bound to compensate. If the settler under this Bill gets a prospecting licence he has waived the right to compensation, and that right of waiving intimately concerns the mortgagee.

If the mortgagee sees this is being carried on he has his remedy. It seems it will restrict the object the Minister has in view.

I do not think the hon. member realizes that the settler has the full right to that land, and under the Land Settlement Act, it is provided that no permit shall be issued unless the applicant satisfies the issuing officer that he has given security to the lessee for all claims for compensation. Under the Land Settlement Act, the lessee has to come to an agreement with any prospector, and that in the past has held up the whole of the prospecting on Crown lands. This proposes to give the lessee the sole right of prospecting. It is only natural, if he has a bond on that farm, that he should get the authority of the bondholder.

Amendments proposed by Minister of Mines and Industries, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Hay, put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

I find that the Governor-General’s approval to the remission of the moneys in this clause has been obtained.

Agreed to.

I wish to move—

I cannot accept that amendment by virtue of Rule 119. The effect of the amendment would be to deprive the Crown of certain rights which it retained in respect of alienated Crown lands.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

At the top of page 6, the Bill refers to the second schedule of Act 30 of 1918. That schedule does not deal with profits at all.

There is a correction on page 6. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 10,

I move—

10. (1) Whenever in the Province of Natal the owner, licensee or lessee of land, in the grant of, or title to, which there is a reservation of minerals to the Crown, has, prior to the commencement of this Act, granted a lease to prospect and mine for minerals therein, or an option entitling the holder thereof to obtain such a lease, such lease or option shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law, be of full force and effect and binding on the parties thereto: Provided that—

1. (a) sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (6) (b), (c) and (d), (8) and (9) of section 8 and section 9 of this Act shall apply to such lease or option ; and
2. (b) except as herein provided, the Natal Mines Act, 1899, shall apply to such lease or option.

1. (2) If the holder of such a lease wishes to obtain a renewal thereof as from the date of its termination, he shall be entitled to obtain such renewal for such period and on such conditions as may be agreed between him and the lessor and on such renewal the proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply, and the holder of the renewed lease shall during its currency pay to the Government the share of profits referred to in 6ub-section (1) of section 8 of this Act.
2. (3) If any difference arises between the lessor and the holder of such a lease regarding any matter relating to the renewal thereof, such difference shall be determined by arbitration according to the law in force in the Province of Natal relating to the settlement of disputes by arbitration.
3. (4) If the holder of such a lease fails before the termination thereof to notify the lessor in writing that he wishes to renew it, or if such an option is not exercised within the period stipulated therein, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the land in respect of which such lease or option was granted in the same manner and to the same extent as if no such lease or option had been granted prior to the commencement of this Act.

I hope the committee will bear with me for a few minutes while I explain this matter. It affects land owners in Natal especially, and is rather complicated. Up till about 1893 most of the land sold in Natal by the Government was sold cum mineral rights—without reservation. After that all the land sold contained a reservation on behalf of the Government of all the minerals. An Act was passed by the Natal Parliament in 1899, which laid down, among other things, that no prospecting licence could be issued without the consent of the owner of the land, and the owner of the land might also obtain other rights in terms of the Act. The Natal Mines Act of 1899, section 45, provides that no person, other than the owner, shall be allowed to prospect on private lands unless with the consent of such owner as as hereinafter provided. Section 59 says no person other than the owner shall be allowed to prospect or mine on the land of the said owner, or to mine coal, limestone and certain other base minerals. These two clauses were read by the owners of land, the minerals of which are reserved, to give them a right to prospect for coal and other minerals, notwithstanding the fact that section 60 says that nothing in the Act relating to private lands shall affect the rights of the Crown. These provisions were very contradictory. The Government of the day in Natal—and I am speaking of matters with which I had to deal—waived any rights it had and allowed the land owner to lease the base minerals to any company willing to develop them. There was, however, no actual waiver, but the Government sat still. The reason was that Government felt that it could not develop the minerals themselves, so it was better that someone should do it. A large number of leases were entered into, and the matter went on for a number of years. Then in 1912 the Union Government looked into the matter, and for the first time laid claim to the minerals and required, I think quite rightly, the companies which work them to take out licences. The licences were taken out for all land worked for coal. The companies not only paid a royalty to the land owners, but licences to the Government. Nothing was said about the question of the rights of the owners until two companies fell out. One of them happened to be the owner of the surface rights, and the other company was the owner of the mineral rights of which it had a lease and also had licences from the Government. The latter company failed to pay rent to the former, and the company which regarded itself as the lessor sued the other company for cancellation of the lease and licences issued by the Government. The case was decided last year, the court holding that for soveral reasons the lessee company was under no obligation to obtain the consent of the owner to obtain licences to carry on mining operations. The court held that Government having reserved the minerals had full power to issue licences, and that the company should get the licences from the Government and thus ignore the owner. That decision gave rise to a very great deal of concern in the minds of many people who have settled on land in Natal, the mineral rights of which are reserved to the Government. This Bill confers very full and fair rights on the surface owners, because it gives power to them to prospect for minerals and to the Government to give them discoverers’ claims and mineral leases. That, however, refers to the future. Nothing is said in the Bill in defence of the rights which have been supposed to exist in Natal for almost 30 years, and consequently there is a great deal of uneasiness on the part of owners and people interested in coal mining companies. Last year I was in communication with some of the companies and owners, and they practically agreed that if a certain clause would be inserted in the Bill to protect their rights that would be all that was required. During the early part of the session, the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) put this amendment on the paper. Unless something is done to protect the interests of the land owners who have already anticipated the Bill, and who imagine that they have certain claims on the coal companies, it would be quite possible for a company to say to the land owner that, although it had a lease from him, it was under no obligation to pay any rent or royalty to him, and that it would simply take out a Government licence.

But the court did not declare that the lease was not binding.

Not definitely because the sole point which was decided was the right of a company to carry on mining operations, it having taken out licences, but it naturally follows that if a company chooses to ignore a lease with the land owner and fails to pay the rent, the land owner will be in the position that he has leased something which belongs to the Government.

Surely a lessee is bound by an error of law.

I very much doubt it. But why give these people the possibility of having to face a law suit ? The greater number of them own from 1,000 to 1,500 acres of land, and if a coal mine is started in the centre of a farm the latter is useless for farming purposes, and the farmer looks for the royalty from the coal mine as a return on his capital. I hope the Minister will meet the point by making some provision to cover it. I do think, however, that these people who have already parted with the minerals, should be at any rate, in as good a position as a man who may part with them under this Bill. If there are two men alongside each other who have land the mineral rights of which are reserved by Government, one of them may have done nothing at all upon his farm, but coal or some other mineral may be found there and, under this Bill, he will have the sole right to prospect, he will have the discoverer’s rights, and he will have the right to enter into a lease subject to the provisions of this Bill. His friend next door, who may have land on which coal was discovered, we will say, ten or fifteen years ago, and which is being developed by a company under a lease which they have obtained from him, will have no rights under this Bill at all. I say it is the duty of this committee to protect that man. The only object which the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and I have in this matter is to protect those people who in good faith entered into leases with coal mining companies, and who for years have been receiving rents and royalties from the coal mining companies, but whose position will be jeopardized by the passing of this Bill. Under this decision which was given last year it was (clearly proved that they have no right to lease the coal or to take any action. [Time limit.]

I think I appreciate all the points that the hon. member (Sir Thomas Watt) wishes to urge. In fact, as he has stated, he has approached me privately and so has the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). The position is simply this, owing to a misapprehension owners—and when I speak of owners I mean people occupying land the mineral rights of which were reserved to the Crown— have received high rentals from the collieries. Leases have been entered into and these rentals have been received under an entire misapprehension of the law. The misapprehension was on both sides, the lessors being under the impression that the lessees could not mine at all under the existing laws of Natal, unless they had these leases. Afterwards it turned out in this case in the Provincial Division in Natal that the lessees were not all dependent on a lease and that if they got a licence from the Government they could mine the coal. Under the Act referred to by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) the owner in the sense that I have used the words, is entitled to four claims. That is his preferent right. The claims in Natal are very large ones, equal to about 100 acres. Where the lessee has stepped in and started mining and got a licence, he could only have done so after the owner has waived his right to these preferent claims. The lessors have been receiving these rentals all these years which amounted to a considerable sum in many cases owing to this misapprehension, a misapprehension shared by the lessees. In other words, the lessees have entered into leases and paid rentals in error of law and, therefore, if there is still a lease running for 10 years the lessee, however unfortunate his position may be, is, in spite of that judgment, still bound to pay the rent, because it was equally open to him to ascertain his legal position as it was open to the lessor to ascertain his. Now the hon. member for Dundee and the hon. member for Newcastle come and want us to introduce in this Bill, with which this question has really nothing to do, nor has the Bill anything to do with this question, a provision whereby we interfere with contractual rights and by which we legalize an error of law and a misapprehension due entirely to the parties.

You could make it retrospective.

The Act obviously deals with the future. It is entirely exceptional, and very exceptional, when an Act is retrospective. On what principle of law can we introduce this provision ?

In regard to the Minister’s statement that under the Natal Act the owner could get a certain number of claims, it is quite true that under the Act he could, but he has given away his rights and these mining companies have already obtained licences for all the coal-bearing ground on the farm. It is not fair under these circumstances to say that the man who has already dealt with his minerals shall not be put in a worse position than the man who has not dealt with them? I think that the Minister is rather misapprehending the effect of this decision of the court. The head-note of the judgment says—

Here under the Bill the consent of the owner is required. If I have not dealt with my lands at all, I am the sole person who has the right to prospect for minerals, but if I have dealt with my lands before, I am to have no right at all under this Bill, and, as far as I can see, following the judgment of the court, the coal mining company which is developing my land may ignore me entirely, pay me nothing at all and obtain a licence from the Government.

I want to point out that where the hon. member refers to section 59 of this Natal Act, in which are the words “except with the written consent of the owner,” this section was interpreted by the court in that very case a no it was held not to apply to a person on whose ground the mineral rights were reserved to the Crown. In the immediately following section it says—

The court dealt with the construction of these two sections.

Yes, but read Section 45.

I am pointing out what the court said with regard to these two sections. It is clear that Clause 60 overrides by its express terms any conflicting provision in 59. The hon. member refers me to 45—

That is just my point. The court held that the expression “private land” in 59, and presumably in 45, did not cover the case of a person the mineral rights on whose ground were reserved to the Crown.

Proposed new clause put and Sir Thomas Watt called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

moved an amendment in the Dutch version which did not affect the English.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

6. Section 98 of the principal Act is hereby repealed as from the first day of January, 1927,

and the following new section 98 is substituted therefor :—

1. (a) save under order of any competent Court pays any portion of the remuneration, salary or wages or of any earnings under contract payable to a person employed on a mine otherwise than—
   1. (i) in current coin of the Union, or
   2. (ii) to such employee direct or his duly authorized agent in the case of such employee’s sickness, or
   3. (iii) to any sick benefit society established in respect of the mine on which such employee is employed, or
   4. (iv) to any insurance company in which such employee is insured, or
   5. (v) to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue in respect of any tax due by such employee under the law relating to income tax and poll tax, or
2. (b) becomes surety for or pay6 or procures the payment of the debt of a person employed on a mine due to the keeper of a business mentioned in the last preceding section, shall be guilty of an offence and liable—
   1. (i) in the case of a first conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment without the option of a fine for a period not exceeding six months ;
   2. (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds, or to imprisonment without the option of a fine for a period not exceeding one year.
3. (2) No cession of his remuneration, salary or wages or of his earnings under contract or any part thereof by any person employed on a mine shall be of legal force or effect.
4. (3) Any person employed on a mine who purports to make a cession of any portion of his remuneration, salary or wages or of his earnings under contract and any person who purports to accept such a cession shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the penalties prescribed in sub-section (1) hereof.
5. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section a mining company may deduct from the salary or wages earned by and payable to any of its underground employees the cost of any boots supplied to such employee.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has drawn my attention to the words—

but I have met that by amending the previous Clause 5.

Yes, to make it consistent.

As an amendment to the amendment moved by the Minister on this clause, I move—

I would like to refute some of the arguments that have been used by hon. members on this question, and especially some of the arguments used by my hon. friends on the cross-benches. One of my hon. friends on the cross-benches the other evening, while being perfectly fair in many respects in his criticism of my case, made a statement to the effect that one of his reasons for being against it was that a man’s wife might run into debt owing to the stop order system. If a man is dealing with any outside trader in any town in South Africa, if his wife wants to run into debt, she can do so, and she can run him into debt. I do not object to criticism of the principle for which I am contending, but I do object to anything in the nature of misresentation, or anything which is intended to bolster up a case against this organization by quoting examples which are applicable to any course of trading in the Union. We heard a great deal about the way in which the co-operative movement in England has been built up, but I claim that it is no use making any comparison between the co-operative movement in South Africa and the co-operative movement in England. On the Rand we find it very difficult indeed to build up a co-operative society on the ordinary principles of co-operation, owing to the shifting character of the population. We have a shifting population from Randfontein to Springs. Another statement was that if the co-operative society depended on the stop order, it would be disastrous if the employer were to take away the facilities. The facilities being granted there are facilities granted by many other employers in South Africa, including the Government itself and the municipal councils. The hon. member said that the principle of no stoppages of wages must be retained. If that were the object of this Bill, we would have no complaint, but the principle of no stoppages whatever from a man’s salary or wages is not maintained by this Bill. This Bill lays it down that certain stop orders are to be recognized. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister and other members, when they say that they are opposed to stop orders, and that every man must be paid his wages in coin of the realm. Then another argument brought in is in regard to the payment of insurance premiums for the police force by means of stop orders. I believe the tendency to lapse is just as great and even greater outside the stop orders than it is with the stop orders. Then we come to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) when he spoke about easy credit. One of the ruinations of the people in South Africa is the system of credit. Men compete with one another to get names on their books for credit. I know of instances where men earning 15s. or 16s. a shift have been pressed to buy a hundred and fifty guinea piano. Again I say they are building up their case on misrepresentation. There is no more easy credit there than with other traders, and not as much. These men can prove definitely that they have drawn the attention of the representatives of the organization when they think they are likely to overstep the mark. When the hon. member makes the statement that there has been considerable overbuying in connection with the East Rand Co-operative Society, then I say he has not sufficiently investigated the case. Then the hon. member for Boksburg says that the stop order should be allowed for sick benefit societies. If that principle is right, I say the men are equally entitled to have the stop order system for the purpose of supplying them with food, clothing and shelter to prevent them from becoming sick. There is no difference in the principle. The same hon. gentleman went on to say that these co-operative societies do not worry how much the men have left. The facts in connection with the East Rand Co-operative Society are entirely opposed to that statement. I say deliberately that statement is not founded on fact. Then he went on to do what I hardly thought he would do, and that was to produce a list of civil imprisonments in Boksburg, and he certainly conveyed the impression that these men had all been sued owing to their connection with the East Rand Co-operative Society. To my mind he conveyed the idea that they were all members of the society. When I asked to see the list it was the ordinary list of men sentenced to civil imprisonment during that month. It is entirely unfair of the hon. member to produce a list of that description, simply certifying that 28 or 30 men in such and such a month had had civil imprisonment orders made against them; and to try and nail that on to the society. In any other town you would get just as big a list in proportion. [Time limit.]

Will the Minister explain one or two things in this amended clause? In paragraph 98 (1) (a), sub-section (1) it says “in current coin of the Union.” I do not quite follow that. In sub-section (2) intended to validate payment by cheque, or is it intended to be supplementary to (1) ? Then in paragraph (b) (2) that reads to me as a very extraordinary paragraph. Is it not quite sufficient to lay down the law as it is laid down, that a company shall not arrange to trade directly or indirectly with its employees, without going so far as to create an offence, and possibly to send a person to gaol for becoming surety for payment of a debt ? Much as I sympathize with some of the principles underlying this legislation it seems to me that this is going to almost fantastic lengths. The number of crimes made by this one section really becomes alarming. I ask the Minister to explain why sub-section (b) is really necessary.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) went on to make a statement that these men have no right to come to the House and ask for the system of stop orders to be legalized. They have not done so at all. They have asked the House not to single them out for differentiation. The mine worker is only asking to be treated like every other citizen in the country. He says, if the Government wishes to make stop orders illegal let them do it for every other citizen in the country, and they are prepared to accept that, but they say you have no right to single them out for special legislation. It is entirely unfair. The native on the mines has the very privilege they are denying the white man in the co-operation societies. The Minister is doing an absolute injustice to 800 men in the Boksburg constituency, and to a larger number than 800, because this society has proved by the departmental returns that it has been responsible for keeping down the cost of living to the community in that area.

Question?

There is no question about it, and if the hon. member paid a little more attention to Krugersdorp, and less to Boksburg, he and I would get on very well indeed. With all respect to him, he knows nothing whatever about the East Rand Cooperative Society. I say there is no question that this organization has been responsible for keeping down prices in that area, and has been of unbounded benefit to the men who are members of that society. Another argument brought against these people is that women are in the habit of getting loans from the co-operative society. I say that the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) when he made that statement had nothing to go on in connection with the East Rand Co-operative Society. Even if women were doing this, the argument is equally applicable to the private traders. The case put forward by the East Rand Co-operative Society is that the objection to their method of trading is raised by a few retailers only. It is the trader that is putting up the agitation against them, and when they say that I say it is absolutely correct. Then people come along and say that a certain number of traders have been driven out of business by the society. There is no case where proof can be brought forward that any man has been driven out of business owing to the operations of this organization. Even if it were so, I say the benefits to the community have outweighed any commercial man having disappeared in that area. The society employs 17 white men at a higher rate of wages than the ordinary trade union rate, and they are employing more men to-day than the whole of the commercial community in Cason Road have employed in the whole of their existence. I am speaking of Boksburg North. Boksburg for years has been struggling against Johannesburg in order to keep the trade in the hands of the commercial people of Boksburg. Frequently working men will tell you that they can pay their return fare to Johannesburg, pay for their meals, and save more than if they had stayed at the Reef town. In the Boksburg areas there is a gross turnover of approximately £5,000 a month, and if we were to spread this over the 80 retailers, it is only £63 per business, which means practically nothing to them at all.

It is not always that my hon. friend and I agree. I am not as acquainted with the circumstances as he is, but I gather that members of these societies shall be given the power of stop orders in connection with their wages. The hon. member is pleading the cause of the co-operative trading societies, the same as we introduced into the Bill of 1922. It means that they are practically buying for cash and practically getting wholesale prices.

Membership is limited to the mining employees, and is not open to anybody who wants to become a member.

A co-operative society is limited to certain members, and as I read the clause, only members of a co-operative society can deal with a co-operative trading organization, the people I would like to ask are not members of this committee, but the wives and children of those who take advantage of these co-operative organizations, and they have the advantage at the end of every month, being in a better position than they would be in under ordinary conditions, the wages of the husband going much further. I think the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has eloquently made out an extremely good case, and we shall be anxious to help him in his amendment, because we are all anxious to help the poor and needy.

I am rather anxious to get the measure through the House, so I am not going to follow the example of my colleague (Mr. Waterston) and discuss all the mazes of the Act. When I spoke the other evening I produced certified copies of the records of the magistrate’s court of Boksburg, showing that 38 people had during the first four months of this year had civil imprisonment orders given against them, ranging from three days to three months. Being an official document it did not say where these men were employed, but in a covering letter from the Boksburg Chamber of Commerce I was informed that all these people were employees of the E.R.P.M., and connected with the co-operative stores. That statement bore out my argument that because of the easy credit of these co-operative stores and excessive buying quite a number of these workmen find themselves in difficulty—and I have nothing to withdraw. In my view, it is very unfair trading, because this one concern has the guarantee of the stop order, and they do not confine their operations to the co-operative society but have their doors open to the ordinary public. My hon. friend in his eloquent argument did not meet the one salient point, that the society can easily get along without the stop orders. During the past few years this society has set aside reserve funds, and if it is all that is claimed for it, there is no necessity for stop orders to carry on its business. I look upon the stop order as the thin edge of the wedge for trading by the mines, for we know that once the mines take an interest in trading, all sorts of manipulation is resorted to in order to influence their men.

I did not hear much in favour of the worker in the speech of the last speaker. The argument is all in favour of the trading interests. I have never been able to understand the attitude of hon. members on those (Labour) benches on the stop orders. They seem to be afraid of some establishment of the truck system or of giving some privilege to the Chamber of Mines. There is no suspicion of a truck system in this case, nor can there be any suspicion against the Chamber of Mines. I think the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has put up a very good case and I am going to vote for his amendment. It seems to me that the people who are working in the mines and who are the real producers of the wealth of the Band should have an opportunity of spending their wages in the best way possible.

Will you apply it to sugar?

Certainly. The traders on the Reef are owing their living to the purchases made from their stores by the people working on the mines. We are told that if this stop order system is allowed to continue they will be ruined, and so, in order to protect them the real producer of the wealth is to give them out of his earnings, an unnecessary livelihood. The worker is to be prevented from getting a fuller return for his efforts, because it is inimical to an already overcrowded distributing class. The workers on the Rand ought to be allowed to establish their own trading concerns if they want to do it.

There is nothing that prevents their doing it off their own bat. They can organize and be loyal to one another.

The Minister overlooks that these workers could not obtain the necessary credit to do the trade unless they assist each other with the credit.

It has always been so under the gold law.

Cannot the Minister get away from the legal standpoint ?

The law permits a co-operative society.

Yes, apparently on capitalistic terms. But the Minister prevents these men from doing what every farmer does. What is a bill of exchange but a stop order ? Why, the whole of our commerce is carried on by stop orders in one way or another.

Then you must strike out the clauses in the gold law.

Strike them out, then. If they are unjust to-day there is no need for them to remain, because the thumb-screw was considered just a hundred or so years ago that is no reason why it should be in operation to day. Here you have an opportunity of doing a right.

I am tightening up the present law.

We want to look at the things from a real economic aspect.

The strongest point made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), in favour of the acceptance of his amendment, was, in my opinion, the fact that the principle of stop orders is already agreed to in this Bill, and if you are to allow employees on the mines to give a stop order to sick benefit societies, and to insurance societies for funeral expenses, it is far more important that you should permit of stop orders to societies that are carried on for the purpose of keeping the miners alive and well. The Co-operative Societies Act of 1922 was framed to encourage co-operation in South Africa— especially co-operative trading societies. I know something of the considerable benefit cooperative societies have been to working people in Great Britain. The representatives of the East Rand Co-operative Society told us that if the stop order system is done away with, it will react detrimentally to their particular society. I am out to encourage co-operative trading societies in South Africa by every legitimate means and I will support the amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan.

I am sure that the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) must be delighted at the support he is getting, quite apart from the merits or demerits of the case he is putting up.

Why that sneer?

No sneer at all. I am felicitating the hon. member on his support, and have every right to do that. It is so unusual that one must draw attention to it. I really rose to discuss one or two points brought forward by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). I agree that it is well to encourage co-operation. The Bill the hon. member brought in was for that purpose, but we discovered that quite a number of co-operative societies are practically one man concerns, under the Bill introduced by the hon. member.

That could not be under the law.

It was so. The beginning of these co-operative societies, the E.R.P.M., lay in the desire of trade unions upon the Rand to start these societies, round about the war time, to decrease the cost of living, and they were comparatively successful for a time. The majority of them failed. Only one or two were a success, one in Germiston and one on the Rand. They became branches of this society, which had ramifications throughout the country. Ultimately the Chamber of Mines came to their assistance with a loan of £50,000—I am not dealing with this present one—and they were bolstered up. Out of these co-operative societies emerged one or two societies, and one at East London, which purported to be a co-operative society under the Act, was really being run by one man. When the manager of the co-operative stores came down here and interviewed me, among others, in the endeavour to get support for the stop order system, I put the question, Can anyone join your society? He said no ; only those working on the mines —on the E.R.P.M. My point is that it is not a real co-operative society, when it is engaged in that sort of work of distributing all that is required by the general public, if it is confined to one section of it. It is quite true from my own knowledge that the East Rand Co-operative Society will not allow men to overspend. There is a limit to the stop order allowed.

A cash basis.

Oh, yes. My opposition to the stop order system in regard to this society lies in the danger to the men themselves. The hon. member for Brakpan stated, in his second reading speech, that the men are not forced to join. The hon. member, like myself, has worked on these mines and he knows that on the mines, especially since the 1922 strike, a nod is as good as a wink.

I do not think the management care a straw.

The hon. member for Brakpan said that people were invited to see the books of the society but did not come, but the question is not whether they are running their concern fairly as a financial institution at all.

Part of the accusation against them was that they were financed by the mining industries.

That has never been my accusation. But they started with £500 capital and according to the statement of the general manager himself they paid back that £500 capital in the first year, and they are doing £5,000 a month turnover with an original capital of £500. It is limited to these men on the mines and nobody else is allowed to join, and that is where the true principle of co-operation is vitiated. When trouble come along so far as the men are concerned, they find themselves faced with a sheer impossibility. What happened in 1922 ?

The butchers stopped the credit of the strikers the next day.

Perfectly true, I hold no brief for commercial men in this case at all, but this is the point, that immediately that strike started the whole of the credit of the E.R.P.M. was stopped by the co-operative stores. I know as much about the Rand strike, probably, as the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), only he was operating a little bit further east than I was. It is said that the co-operative stores have tended to keep down the cost of living in Boksburg North.

They are having that effect all over the Witwatersrand.

My wife finds that she can buy cheaper in Benoni than in Brakpan. As to the encouragement of co-operation, it is suggested that a co-operative society is likely to be firmly established upon a stop order system which allows a man to have no backbone at all. The men are not free to remain outside the co-operative societies, or at least they think they are not free.

That is not correct. The men are not forced to join.

It is a complete disagreement between my hon. friend and myself. I give him credit for all honesty of purpose, and I demand the same credit for myself. [Time limit.]

I am afraid my hon. friend has not been of much assistance to the Minister who has introduced the Bill. I have been listening very attentively to hear the reasons why it is necessary to alter the existing state of affairs. Neither Minister has vouchsafed any information on that point, and when the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs waxed so eloquent about co-operation I was thinking of sending for a copy of the Co-operative Act of 1922, of which he has shown such extraordinary ignorance. Under that Act any seven or more persons can form a co-operative society, and any section of the people may form such societies. The essence of the co-operative trading system is that by the members paying cash the society is able to purchase its goods at wholesale prices. The Minister says that the amount of the men’s purchases is limited. Is that not a good thing ? Is it not a good thing that people should be able to obtain their goods at reasonable prices ? Is it more necessary that men should be enabled to have a stop order, so as to pay their life insurance premium, or a stop order to enable them to provide food and clothing for their family ? The experience of the world is that in all walks of life there is always a certain proportion of people who, when they get their pay at the end of the month, are led to spend more than they ought before they have made provision for supplying for their family’s needs.

They won’t thank you for that aspersion.

That is well known to everybody. My hon. friend is not going to lead me astray by saying that that is casting an aspersion on anyone.

What about the races?

I hope the committee will support the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). Will the Minister of Mines tell us the reason for changing the law ?

I explained that fully at the second reading.

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) but it is quite evident that hon. members have been led astray. The question at issue is not whether co-operative stores should be started on the mines, for the Act recognizes that, but it prohibits mining employees dealing with stores run by the mines, that being an extension of the truck system. The Rand towns have grown up on the principle that trading in the vicinity of the mines should be on the basis of free competition. What is asked for now is the same subterfuge that has been tried by the mines in the past. The Committee on Trading on Mining Areas reported that we were well on the way to having a Kimberley location introduced on the Rand, and that the mining companies, having sold ground for townships, were now engaged in trading. Hon. members opposite should recognize that it is impossible for any Government to give a lien on wages on the assumption that the men are not able to control the spending of their own money. That is a direct reflection on the worker. The mine workers on the Rand are as thrifty as any community we have, and are perfectly able to control their own affairs without our putting this extra weapon into the hands of the mining companies. After the strike, the Chamber of Mines introduced a trading boncern in its native recruiting organization. If the proposal is agreed to, there would be nothing to prevent the gold mining companies issuing stop orders for their native employees, and within a very short time, we should have the Rand in the same position as Kimberley, where the stop order system is carried out to perfection. In that case, the goods are bought from friends of the company and the natives are allowed to buy on credit on condition that the amount of their purchases is deducted from their wages. The Minister is trying to turn the Rand into one big compound. The old Volksraad was very wise when it recognized that the duty of a mining company was to take out gold, and not to mess about with kaffir pipes and blankets. It is only recently that a demand has arisen for the co-operative societies to have a lien on the men’s wages. We recognize that the individual must be assisted in co-operation as far as possible, and the Government is prepared to give every assistance to co-operation. All that the men on the mines require to do is to cooperate and to co-operate amongst themselves, provided that they rely upon themselves, free from any mine company.

What grieves one in connection with this East Rand Co-operative Society and the workers employed on the mines banding themselves together to keep down the cost of living, and voluntarily signing a stop order on their own pay, is to hear such a mass of misrepresentation put forward when the matter is being discussed. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) said they should manage their own affairs. That is what the men ask for. They say that if they agree to sign a stop order on their own wages, why should they be singled out for differential treatment ? The hon. member behind me says that you cannot trust the mine companies. It is no use anybody in this House becoming so blinded by prejudice against the mine companies that he is prepared to do an injustice to the working classes in the sole interest of the commercial community. I challenge the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to produce one man in the whole of the Boksburg area who is prepared to swear that he has been forced, directly or indirectly, into joining this organization, or signing a stop order. The Minister has agreed to the principle of stop orders. He has admitted it in regard to insurance premiums. I cannot help feeling that an injustice is being done to the 800 members of this co-operative society. They produced evidence before the departmental committee proving that it practically meant life or death to these men to have the stop order. It is their own credit, and the merchants recognize that as cash. The aim of the commercial community behind this action of the Government is to kill them. Individually amongst the commercial community you find as good men as you will find anywhere, but when they act as a commercial community in connection with the maintenance of prices, etc., they have no consideration for the workers or anybody else. The East Rand Co-operative Society have to pay taxes and licences like other trading concerns. In 1925 they paid £262 in taxation. Their membership has increased in 12 months from 770 to 902. The amendment I have moved is to say that, in addition to the insurance companies, and the sick benefit societies, that the Minister is making provision for and in reference to which he has recognized the principle of the stop order, he should also recognize that principle in regard to “any co-operative trading society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1922, or any amendment thereof, and of which such employee is a member.” That man is just as much entitled to the privileges of the voluntary stop order system as any one working on the mines is entitled to the same privilege or a sick benefit society. One of the arguments used against the co-operative society is that it is confined to men on the mines. The sick benefit society is also confined to employees on the mines. It is not fair to single these men out and say they are responsible for this and that, when if evils can be proved against the society they can be proved against any business house in South Africa. In addition to other benefits which have accrued from membership of this organization, in 1926 these men divided among themselves £26,514 7s. That was their bonus … [Time limit.]

I have an amendment as an amendment to the one proposed by the Minister. My intention is to exempt recreation rooms or sporting clubs and refreshment rooms from stop order prohibition On the mines, in my district as well, there are refreshment rooms where the clerks in the office and the employees in the engine rooms come for coffee or tea, where they can get other refreshments and cigarettes, and where when off duty they can play dominoes, chess, draughts, and the like. The custom is that I.O.U.’s are given for the small expenditure, the total of which is deducted at the end of the month from the salaries of the clerks and workmen. It seems to be an innocent practice, and although my amendment is in the same direction as that of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) it is of less importance, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept it. All the objections to the stop order system cannot be made in this case. It is said that under the stop order system too much is purchased, out this surely does not hold in the case of coffee and tea. In the second place it has been argued that the stop order system is a certain means of control, so that the people are not quite free to spend as much as they like. It therefore prevents extravagance. A third point mentioned is that a man, e.g., buys boots in a shop under the stop order system and then sells them at another place for a smaller amount. These objections do not apply in the case of refreshment rooms, because these are only established for the convenience and pleasure of the employees who do not always have change in their pockets when they are going to work. I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

The new clause is not yet before the committee, and the old clause must first be put.

New section 7 has been moved by the Minister.

Not yet.

Clause 6 as appearing on page 837 is under discussion.

Old Clause 6 must first be deleted before you can move the new clause.

Clause 6 put and negatived.

On new Clause 6,

I am against the stop order system for any purpose whatever, but it does not say that those who are against the principle of stop orders are necessarily against the principle of co-operation. Most of my life has been spent in the co-operative movement, but I have yet to find any community where there is a solitary co-operative society that has been built up on the stop order system. The societies with which I have been connected have been built up entirely upon the capital and thrift of the people. They not only encourage thrift, but inculcate the habit of dealing with their own business and a judicious apportionment of their money in various directions. Many of the mining companies have sold land to the traders, and have allowed them to invest money in that trade, and are now ruining these traders. That seems to me to be utterly unfair to any system of trading in this country, and it is not a principle that has built up the co-operative movement in other countries. I believe we are embarking on a dangerous principle by admitting the stop order system, and we are doing co-operation a great service by eliminating it.

It is a curious political point that finds the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) in one camp, and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and myself in another. It was a revelation to the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort when the hon. member for Roodepoort (The Rev. Mr. Mullineux) told him the difference between these co-operative societies and the ordinary co-operative societies of which the right hon. member is so ardent a champion. The former compete with the merchants by getting hand-in-glove with the mines, and obtaining terms from them which the merchants cannot get. If merchants tender stop orders the mines will not honour them at the end of the month. So long as the mines discriminate, and accept stop orders from these co-operative societies, and not from the merchants, the dice are loaded in favour of these societies, which do not function legitimately as co-operative trading societies should function. If conditions like that were going to bring some of my right hon. friend’s farmer friends to bankruptcy, he would quickly see their difficulties. Is it not an indirect form of the truck system when an employer says—

Do not let the mines by this Jesuitical way get over the truck act and bring ruin on the traders all along the Reef.

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that these amendments have not been formally moved. They should be formally moved now.

: I move as a further amendment—

I wish to say that I am not for a moment assuming any mala fides, either on the part of the mines or the co-operative societies. I have got to deal with the principle that has always been observed for the last 35 years on the Rand. One of the principles was the present section 98 of the gold law, and I do not say it simply because it is the law, but with my experience of the Rand, which I think is more than most hon. members present, I know it is a sound principle. This stop order system that has come into vogue, is a violation of the Act as it stands to-day—and if it is not a violation of the letter of the law, it is a violation of the spirit of the law—because the whole spirit of this provision all along has been that the wages or salary shall be handed over in coin, and that no deduction shall be made. What is the effect of the stop order? If the mine acts upon it, then, of course, a deduction is made. Another objection raised is that you must not stop this particular order unless you stop orders everywhere. Obviously, in a Bill like this, I cannot embody a clause doing that. It would be out of place. I am dealing with an amendment to the Gold Law. Another point is that on the Witwatersrand you have the very special problem, and from the earliest days it has been recognized that special legislation is necessary. I must say that the hon. member for Brakpan is a first-class booster. He has so boosted this society that they might very well do without this adventitious aid of stop orders. In the strike of 1922, one of the first things the shops of these co-operative societies did was to close down.

Who said so?

Is it not so? The hon. member behind me said it.

Yes, it is so.

I go further. I have already referred to the letter of Mr. W. A. Martin, of Johannesburg, a man of standing and one of the most respected men in Johannesburg, but I want to point out that up to now, you have in this Bill almost literally taken over the suggestions of the Select Committee and the wording of the Bill marked A.B. 36/22, A.B. 23 in Clauses 24 to 29, and that Bill was prepared not by this Government, but by the Government of the right hon. member opposite, and he was in 1923 a member of that Government. The stop order is specifically forbidden in this Bill which we have copied. The stop order has always been in conflict with the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. In my speech on the second reading, I dealt with abuses that take place. I do not say they are general, but such abuses do occur, and whenever a man feels that he can get something by simply signing a piece of paper, he is more prone to spend his income than when he pays in hard cash. It is no argument that in Clause 6 I recognize the principle of the stop order by making an exception in favour of benefit socities and insurance companies. A man is not prone to waste his money on these, and there is a limitation at once to his temptation, if I might so put it. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston).

*Nor can I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize).

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me whether payment by cheque would be regarded as a contravention of section 98 (1) (a), sub-clause 1. I mentioned that at the second reading. That is the wording of the present Act, and nobody would ever dream or has ever dreamt during all these years, of prosecuting a company because they pay their manager or shift boss by cheque.

I think they pay all their employees by cheque.

Nobody would interfere with that. We know the mischief which is aimed at by the Act, and that is sufficient. In regard to the other point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that is only one of the implications set forth. It may be that provisions overlap slightly. The hon. member knows by experience, as a lawyer, that any language in the world is inadequate to express our thoughts. If he pays an employee direct or, in the case of illness, the person’s duly authorized agent, then he is within the law. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) asked why I made no provision regarding any person becoming a surety for a person employed on a mine. That is already the law to-day, in section 98 (b). Abuses I have been told have occurred in connection with a lot of stop orders to natives, and it has occurred in connection with the N.R.C. stores. A native is paid in one room, and they go with their wages to an adjoining room, and there the compound manager sits with the stop orders and he at once asks them to pay the amount shown on these orders. Well, if that is not a flagrant violation of the letter of the law, it is a flagrant violation of the spirit, and that is why I have inserted the words,

who pays or procures the payment of a debt.

I move, as a further amendment—

The intention is actually the same as that proposed by the Minister in his amendment, but it is an improvement, because hon. members will notice that in the amendment of the Minister it is said that anyone “who intends to cede” his salary to anyone “who intends to accept such a cession” shall be guilty of an offence. My proposal is that if anyone has actually ceded or accepted a cession he shall be guilty. Then there is another small difference, viz.: that in the Minister’s amendment it is said “if anyone cedes a part of his salary ”, while my amendment merely states “if he cedes the whole or a part of his salary The object is the same as the Minister’s, but the wording is better.

I have no objection to the amendment, but I think my hon. friend is trying to paint the lily. It is already included in my wording. I may say as a lawyer that the meaning of “intends to cede or accept” practically includes the acceptance of the cession. It is indifferent to me whether the hon. member’s amendment is accepted or not. The wording of my amendment is entirely adequate to attain his object.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Waterston and Mr. Nieuwenhiuze put and negatived.

Is the Minister accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh)?

I am not accepting it, I don’t regard it as well worded.

Amendment proposed by the Rev. Mr. Hattingh put and negatived.

Section 98 states that any person described in the preceding section who pays salaries otherwise than in the current coin of the Union, or to his duly authorized agent in case of sickness, is liable to a penalty.

I understand the Minister wants these prohibitions to be cumulative. Perhaps this could be amended at the report stage.

All right.

Proposed new clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

Will the Minister tell us what the reason is of this amendment ?

In sub-Clause (2) it is provided that the Governor-General shall appoint a commission. I am inserting in line 61—

otherwise it might appear that the commission is confined to reporting on (a), (b), (c) and (d) and on nothing else in sub-section (5). Then on page 6 in sub-Clause 6 I delete the words—

Then I add in the same sub-Clause (6) to subparagraph (c)—

Then at the end of sub-Clause (7) I propose after “Mining title” to insert—

Hon. members will see that in sub-Clause (7) provision is made for—

These are to be deducted, but if these profits were re-invested in the mine and form part of the capital expended on the mine they are not to be deducted. At the end of sub-Clause (7) these words are to be added—

I think these are all improvements, but may I suggest to the Minister another small amendment in sub-section (3). There it is proposed that if a mine is closed for some reason or other an inquiry will be held by a commission appointed by the Governor-General which shall consist of three persons. There is no doubt that this whole clause is a very drastic one and may make people nervous and the position may become more serious in future, because we are approaching a time when we may expect mines to drop out and mines to close down because of ending their career. A commission merely of three persons might not be very suitable and might make investors in the mines nervous and I would suggest to the Minister that we alter this provision and, instead of providing that the commission shall consist of three persons appointed by the Governor-General we should make the Government Mining Engineer the chairman. I would, therefore, propose—

The result would be that the Government Mining Engineer will always be one of these three and he will be the chairman. That would ensure that, whilst the Government has latitude about the other two persons, there will be somebody of great technical training. I think the Minister will agree with me that this is a very drastic clause and where we can temper it and make it more acceptable and put it in a form that will frighten people less it seems to me that we would be serving the interests of the State, because the mining industry is no longer the great catch for investment purposes that it was and this clause really does go very far.

Of course, it is well-nigh inconceivable that a commission would be appointed which would not at any rate get the technical opinion, on any particular mine enquired into, of the Government Mining Engineer. That certainly would be the fixed practice of the department I represent, but if the right hon. member attaches that value to the amendment I have no objection to it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I think the Minister, in his endeavour to protect the bondholders, is rather unfair to the State. For instance, it is provided here in case of the State being compelled to take it over and work a mine it should make a first charge in favour of the bondholder of the amount due to the bondholder, including interest. I have a case in mind where the State would have to pay half-a-million pounds before it would get anything. It seems to me it is asking too much. The clause will also have the effect of preventing the State from negotiating or working properties which it might otherwise do without such a heavy contingency. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in a case like this the fair thing would be to say that the State and the bondholders should equally share in the profits which are made.

Perhaps I have not made it quite clear, although it should be clear from the printed amendment on page 838, that this about the proceeds being available for the mortgagee applies to the end of sub-Clause (7) as well as to the end of sub-Clause (8).

May I, before we come to the amendment of the Minister, move a small amendment in sub-section (6). Sub-section (6) now reads as follows—

Here the Governor-General has to be of opinion that the stopping of the mine, or the non-working or inadequate working of the mine, is detrimental to the public interest, but I would submit that there is another factor very important to consider. It is this, that the stopping of the mine may be due to causes entirely beyond the control of the mineowner. It may be there is no working capital ; it may be any one of a very large number of causes. I do not think, if the Governor-General is convinced that the stopping of the mine is due to unavoidable causes, that he should proceed to the confiscation of the mine. Naturally the stopping of the mine would almost always be detrimental to the public interest, but there may be other considerations. He may not be a free agent at all. I would therefore move—

So the Governor-General will have to convince himself of two facts. Firstly, that the stopping of the mine is not due to causes entirely beyond the control of the mineowner, and secondly, that the stoppage is detrimental to the public interest. If the provision remains as it is here, the mineowner may be perfectly innocent, and there may be the best reasons for the stoppage ; yet the Governor-General is obliged to go on and declare the stoppage detrimental to the public interest and confiscate the mine.

It is of course obvious that there may be causes beyond the control of the holder of the mining title, and yet the State should step in and apply the powers under this clause. One of the instances the right hon. gentleman has himself given—for instance, it would be going too far because the working capital has become exhausted, and then probably and consequently lie there for say, 20 years because he has had £1,000,000 of working capital and spent every farthing. The right hon. member is really endeavouring by his amendment to make it cumulative. I would refer him to section 127. sub-section (4) of Act 35 of 1908, and to the words—

I do not think that the wide interpretation which he suggests of the words—

could be applied in practice. You could conceive of a colliery having a big fire and all the timber destroyed, and there might be a subsidence—surely the State could not possibly be justified, under a clause like this, in saying to the holders of the mining title or the colliery—

I think, with all due deference, the interpretation put upon the words—

is rather far-fetched, and I do not think the right hon. gentleman ought to press this amendment.

Instead of the amendment which I have moved, I move—

In regard to the further amendment put by the Minister, why does he tie his hands by putting a time limit of three months ? Why not leave it to him to fix a time adequate to the circumstances ? I move as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Alines and Industries, in line 14, on page 6—

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister that the discontinuance or discharge as the case may be has been occasioned by influx or scarcity of water or serious accident or damage to the mine or equipment.

I foresee difficulties arising under sub-section (1) which provides that any person employing 500 or more persons on any mine discontinuing mining operations unless he has given written notice of his itention to do so is liable to penalties. Supposing the discontinuance is quite involuntary, say by reason of a strike when mining operations must be discontinued, in that case the offender is liable to a penalty of £200 every day. Will the Minister look into this point.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9 and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments ; to be considered on 7th June.

I move—

As the House is aware, machinery already exists under the Post Office Administration and Shipping Combinations Discouragement Act of 1911 for the discouragement of shipping combinations which are deemed to affect adversely the trade or industries of the Union. The Bill before the House, whilst taking over the provisions in this connection in the Act referred to, is designed to afford a further measure of protection to importers and exporters against arbitrary action on the part of shipping companies engaged in the South African trade. Representations have been made to the Government from time to time that the rates of freight charged by some of the shipping companies trading to and from South Africa on certain imports and exports are excessive, having regard to the rates charged for the transportation of similar commodities between other countries. I do not propose on this occasion to go into the general question of ocean rates to and from South Africa, but it is felt that the Government should be placed in the position of being able to deal with complaints which are made in this connection, which at present it is not. In other countries the Government has found it necessary to pass legislation enabling it to deal with the levying of excessive rates of freight, more especially when the export rates have an unjustly prejudicial effect on the exporters of the country concerned as compared with their foreign competitors. A section of the Bill which appears to have attracted a good deal of attention is that which provides that a rate of freight having once been reduced may not be increased within a period of twelve months without permission. I would at once state that the power sought in this respect is to counter temporary rate cutting by shipping companies for the purpose of penalising, against his competitors, an individual importer or exporter who has been fortunate enough to obtain freight at a cheaper rate than that charged by themselves. In this connection I would specially refer to an instance which has recently been brought to the notice of the Government where an importer was successful in obtaining a lower rate of freight for the conveyance of galvanised iron to South Africa than that quoted by the conference lines. The conference lines upon becoming aware of the position promptly reduced their rate of freight on this article to an unpayable rate for a short period, in order, as a punishment, to place the competitors of this particular importer in a better position than himself, then subsequently raising the rate to somewhere about the original figure. If in consequence of the importer referred to obtaining a lower rate of freight than that quoted by them the shipping companies had reduced their rate to the same figure no exception could have been taken to their action, but when they temporarily reduce the rate to an obviously impossible figure they could have had only one object in view, and that was to place other importers in a better position than the importer who had dared to ship his goods by a vessel In cases where a rate is reduced for a bona which was not controlled by themselves. In cases where a rate is reduced for a bona fide purpose consent to its increase would not be refused, but it is very necessary that some provision should be made for affording protection to shippers who are enterprising enough to seek cheaper freight, against financial punishment by a shipping company of the kind which I have just described. Another matter dealt with in the Bill in connection with which special mention is necessary is the power sought by the Government to enter into contracts fixing maximum rates for definite periods, for the ocean conveyance of goods exported from the Union, and to pay subsidies in connection therewith. In the existing ocean mail contract which deals primarily with the ocean conveyance of the mails, provision is made that the freight rate on certain articles of produce shall not exceed certain maximum rates which are listed in the contract. This meets the position to a certain extent as far as the activities of the mail company and its associates are concerned, but as there appears to be a growing disinclination on the part of the contractors to the linking up with the mail contract of freight matters, it is deemed desirable to make provision whereby such matters can be dealt with if necessary, apart from the conveyance of the mail. Further it is conceivable that circumstances may arise where it is desirable that maximum rates of freight should be fixed by vessels other than those of the contractors or their associates. The principle of the fixing by Government of maximum rates of freight on exports is not new and has for some time been in operation in some other countries. In New Zealand, for instance, in a contract entered into by the New Zealand Government for the conveyance of mails between New Zealand and San Francisco, maximum rates are fixed for the conveyance of passengers, and for all classes of freight, both to and from New Zealand, and to and from, and between, certain intermediate ports of call. In another contract entered into by the same parties for the conveyance of mails between New Zealand and Canada similar provisions obtain Another instance is that of Italy where under the contracts for subsidised mail services between Italy and Mediterranean Islands, Italian Colonies, Egypt, India, Morocco and the Far East, maximum rates are fixed for the conveyance of passengers and cargo between Italian ports, to and from Italy, and foreign ports of the Adriatic and certain other ports. South Africa is largely dependent for its prosperity on economic ocean transport, and the Government is convinced it will not be doing its duty to the country if it does not take steps to see that South African importers and exporters receive a fair deal from the shipping companies engaged in the trade. Dealing generally with the matter, however, the existing mail and freight arrangements with the South African conference lines cannot be terminated without twelve months’ notice, and that being so, and in view of the necessity for proceeding with other important business before the House, it is not proposed to proceed further with this measure during the present session.

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, debate adjourned ; to be resumed on 7th June.