I would like an explanation from the Minister of the increase in wages of £17,050. What proportion of that is due to the civilized labour policy? Then there is £69,978 for overtime. I think the Minister should give us information in regard to these items

In regard to the first question, it is difficult to say. This item has not been specially dealt with on that basis, so I am afraid I cannot give the information as to what the amount actually is. As I have indicated on a previous occasion, the actual cost of employing civilized labour does not really give the exact position, because there is, according to the testimony which I have from officers concerned, increased efficiency, and it is difficult to say what that increased efficiency amounts to in pounds, shillings and pence. So that while this amount undoubtedly includes such cost, it is difficult to say what the set-off should be. In regard to overtime, the position is that we have done more business and more train miles than we expected in the first instance. Consequently it was necessary to work overtime. When business offers we cannot refuse it simply because it means overtime. I can give my hon. friend this assurance, that the position with regard to overtime has been kept under the closest control during the whole of this financial year. To give the hon. member some illustration of that, I may say that a statement giving the actual figures with regard to overtime was submitted monthly by the General Manager.

I quite appreciate that the Minister is unable to tell us what is the increased efficiency. I asked what was the total amount spent by reason of the new policy. In regard to overtime, surely the Minister will be able to give us some idea of why so large a sum was spent.

The extra business.

Surely extra business does not mean extra overtime.

Of course it does.

Cannot the Minister give us some indication of what it was spent on?

It was spent on wages, as stated. But if business offers, surely the hon. member does not suggest that we should refuse that business and ask clients of the Administration to wait? The increase is due to increased business. If we did not act we would have complaints from customers of the railway.

To the extent that you have the improved efficiency which you claim for your scheme you ought to have less overtime. You cannot tell us that you can do the work better and more expeditiously and still have to make the excuse that you are obliged to work overtime. We can quite understand you have more business, but you also have a larger service. Your personnel is bigger and if your efficiency is also bigger that should be less reason for overtime.

I am afraid the Minister does not know what he is talking about. It is a very curious thing that you have to spend £69,000 in overtime when the total increased receipts to the end of November were only £40,000. As a matter of fact this overtime is spent in the workshops, not in extra traffic. That is the position. I am going by the receipts. To the end of November the total increase in receipts for eight months was only £30,000.

It seems difficult to get hon. members to appreciate the position. Let me give the facts. For the year ended 30th June, 1924, we handled goods classified under tariff 7 and lower, amounting to 16,700,254 tons. For the year ended 31st March, 1926, the corresponding figures were 18,641,715 tons, an increase of close on 2,000,000 tons. Surely if you handle more of this class of goods, low-rated traffic, farmers’ produce, it must mean that you must increase your staff and you must be prepared to authorize overtime. If we are not prepared to do that, would it be business, would it be carrying out the principles of the Act of Union? Would it be business if I said to the farmer who offered me 50 tons of maize, “No, we can only take it next week”? If my hon. friend will only be fair now that I have shown him that there is an increase of 2,000,000 tons, he must appreciate the position. For the year 1923-’24, for which he solely was responsible, the actual working cost per train mile was 8s. 4.5d. Taking the estimates for the current year, including the additional estimates, I find that the cost now works out at 8s 6.0d. per train mile, an increase over 1923 of 1½d. per train mile. But does my hon. friend recognize that for depreciation we are making provision to a larger extent that he did, because he was starving the renewals fund, as he knows. The increased provision on that item alone amounted to £238,355, equal to 1.25 pence per train mile. But my hon. friend also forgets that he neglected to make proper provision for superannuation. Let me give him the additional amount I have to provide—£261,985, equal to 1.35d. per train mile, or a total of 2.6d. per train mile. I am sure my hon. friend appreciates that we are actually running the railways at a lower cost per train mile than they were run under his regime.

I would like to ask the Minister why he always estimates the cost per train mile only. Is it not a fact that costs incurred by the Administration are not always put to income and expenditure? There is an item of £7,000 in regard to insurance.

Come. A paltry sum like that.

It is one of many little sums.

Mention another, please.

What is the cost per train mile for the contribution to superannuation and to deal with the renewal funds? I think we are entitled to a further explanation.

Surely my hon. friend understands when we are calculating the cost of running the railways we exclude special expenditure.

You do not.

I think the hon. member after so many years on the Select Committee of Railways and Harbours would appreciate a simple point like that.

The Minister misunderstands the position of the South African party. They want to run the railways at the expense of the staff—a nine hours’ day and no overtime.

I want to know whether it is the case, as the Minister said—that the whole expenditure is included in calculating these figures per train mile, he has just given us. Does it include payment to the betterment account, the reduction of loan capital, arrears of superannuation—everything?

Not the amount of £250,000— that is not included.

Is the contribution to the betterment fund included?

No. Depreciation and superannuation.

I want to know whether it includes the special appropriation to make up arrears.

No, that is not included.

Why does the Minister take credit for that?

I gave you the figures.

He said that was included in the cost per train mile, but it is not.

The hon. member asked me with regard to other items. I am referring to normal contributions. The amount on the pound for pound basis is included, but the other amount is not included.

That destroys the Minister’s argument that in his estimate of expenditure per train mile he has taken into account the arrears of his predecessor.

What I said was that my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) failed to make the necessary provision with regard to superannuation. As the result of bringing in the Act of 1925, the pound for pound contributions have materially increased—and that is the figure I gave.

Are we not rather hard on the Minister? Since the Minister made his first statement, he has looked to his technical advisers at his back, and they have nodded to him and told him he was entirely incorrect. He should not be so hard on the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl).

If the hon. member could only understand something about railway finance! One would have thought he would have understood, as he was Commissioner for Railways in the Cape. The amount of £250,000 refers to quite a different matter.

I understood the Minister gave it as an explanation why a penny was added to his train expenditure was that it included an amount which had to be paid to the superannuation fund—

Owing to the neglect of my predecessor.

What we want to know is whether the comparison is based on the same sets of figures. It is possible to make a comparison including or excluding superannuation expenditure. Are the same things included or excluded in both cases?

I will endeavour to make it clear to the hon. member. Of course, the same system of accounting has been applied in arriving at the figures I have given, but I have pointed out that we were contributing more to depreciation and superannuation, as items of expenditure, than my hon. friend, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) contributed. I hope that is clear.

As clear as mud.

To you, certainly.

I would like to ask the Minister if some of these heavy charges for repair work are not caused by buying inferior goods at a low price? In answer to a question I put the other day, he said that of twenty-three engines recently purchased eighteen were already in the workshops because the bridge castings, which I understand are the frames, had cracked. He was unable to give me the figure what the cost of the repairs to these engines was. I understand it may be anything from £200 to £500 apiece. It seems to me in this respect overtime and the material in your workshops will be very materially increased, and will greatly exceed the saving on the original contracts, when you accepted a bad, instead of a good, engine. I would like the Minister to make a statement as to results of the purchase of these engines and of other rolling stock which has shown such very bad results in such a very short time.

Will the cost of the repairs of the engines be something like £1,000 apiece, and will they be as good after the repairs as they were supposed to be when new?

The position in regard to these twenty-three engines is that they were ordered from the American Locomotive Company, which, I understand, is the second, if not the largest, locomotive builder in the United States ranking equal to, or being even greater than, Baldwin’s. The American Locomotive Company is a firm of high repute. These engines were built to the designs we supplied as the result of our actual experience with Baldwin engines which we previously ordered from the Baldwin Company. These engines—the Mountain and Pacific types —gave every satisfaction. Eighteen of these engines have come forward, but they have, unfortunately, developed these cracked bridge castings. We hold 10 per cent. of the contract price against the manufacturers. I cannot, at this stage, give the actual cost of repairs. The engines have been placed in the workshops and the matter has been taken up with the manufacturers. I have not the least doubt that they will make the necessary adjustments, and that we shall have no difficulty in that regard as the result of this very unfortunate experience.

Did the Minister enquire from his officials as to their experience with American engines? His mechanical engineers should know that we ordered a lot of locomotives during the war from the United States, and that they proved a bad failure—in fact, I made up my mind in future to order no more American engines, and I think I would have been able to carry that out. We don’t want damages from the makers, but we want engines to carry the traffic. It was a gross mistake to order any more American engines after the experience of those we had in recent years.

I understand that only eighteen engines have been received.

Received actually in the country, but six are probably on the water.

So that the whole lot here are in the workshops.

I mean thirteen.

Are they copies of the engines we originally obtained from Baldwin’s which have proved satisfactory? Why, under those circumstances, did we not place the order with Baldwin’s, which had previously supplied a satisfactory article? What was the difference in price between Baldwin’s and the American Locomotive Company? I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that we buy these engines in order to carry the traffic, it is quite useless to us to have thirteen engines if they are at the Salt River works, or any other works, with cracked chassis. I very much doubt whether these engines, when they are repaired, can possibly be as sound or satisfactory as British engines are. I also very much doubt whether the 10 per cent. retention money will in any way cover the cost of repairs and loss to the country through our not having engines to haul the traffic. The traffic at the Docks is so heavy that goods cannot be carried away through lack of haulage facilities. If these engines, instead of being at the works; were at the Docks, they might be of some use to the country.

Did Baldwin’s have an opportunity of tendering for the engines of which the Minister has apparently taken a cheap imitation? We are not buying inefficiency or litigation, but engines to do the work.

I would ask hon. members not to make statements of that kind. If they desire information, I have nothing to hide; but for the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to talk about engines built to inefficient designs, is simply sheer nonsense.

I did not say inefficient design.

I will explain again. Had the previous Government no unfortunate experience in regard to engines they ordered?

Only with grain elevators.

They were also interested in importing flour, an operation about which we shall hear more later on. Let me again repeat the facts. Mr. Titren, an officer of very high standing and ability, had been considering with the technical officers the question of improving the capacity of the engines, so that they should be able to haul more traffic. As a result of the experience he gained in the United States, and consultation with different companies, a locomotive was ultimately designed which met, so far as we could see, all the requirements of South Africa. These engines were built by Baldwin’s—which is an American company, by the way—the engines arrived, and we gave them a most thorough test on the main line from Cape Town to Beaufort West, and from Beaufort West to Johannesburg. I think that was about the severest test placed upon any engine in South Africa. As they stood the test, and gave excellent service generally, we decided to order twenty-three more. We then asked for tenders and the Baldwin Company also tendered, but their tender was higher than that of the American Locomotive Company.

How much?

I have not the figures now, but I will give them to the House later. The Tender Board decided to give the tender to the American Locomotive Company. My hon. friend has asked whether we had forgotten the experience we had had during the war? No, I had not forgotten it, but at that time it had been stated that it was due to the bad material handled during the war period, and explanations were given which we thought were satisfactory. Under the circumstances, I followed the business principle of accepting the lowest tender. They were both American firms, and the ordinary guarantees were given. I cannot give the loss that we are suffering, but we are carrying on quite satisfactorily with the locomotive power we have. Of course, if we had these engines doing the work as well as the other engines, we should be much better off. The design to which these engines were built was the same design, so that there cannot be any question of any inferior design.

No one has suggested that.

The position is unfortunate, but we must make the best of it. This is a firm of high repute and standing in America, and I have not the least doubt they will see that the matter is disposed of to the satisfaction of the Administration.

It is not a question of inferior design, it is a question of inferior workmanship.

Is it? I cannot say at this stage.

Were the defects in these engines found out after they were put on to traffic on the system, or when they were put together in the workshops?

After traffic.

No defects had been found out whilst being erected in the workshops?

No, none whatever.

The Minister has no doubt made enquiries. The other day I asked him what the experience of the department had been with regard to the Baldwin engine—Pacific and mountain engine—and the Minister said they had undergone a trial in this country with a run between Beaufort West and De Aar and then to Johannesburg. Was it not a fact these engines were imported into this country with that idea, and they embarked upon their work with a flourish of trumpets and advertisements in the papers? Is it the experience that the Baldwin and mountain engine have continued in traffic and carried trains to Johannesburg in two shifts? Has the experience been, what we were led to expect with a flourish of trumpets and advertisements, that two engines would carry the traffic to Johannesburg in two shifts, or that class 17A engines, built in England, have been doing the work equally well, if not better, than the Paciffic or mountain engines have been doing? The Minister is in a position to give the House the information. Is the Minister’s experience of British-built engines on the lines of the Union of South Africa anything like the experience with the American engines? Has there ever been a case where a large number of British engines have been imported and were found afterwards to be in the deplorable condition of these engines? On that position we hope ideas have changed latterly, because there was a period of time when there was a desire to buy engines constructed by foreign firms rather than those constructed in Great Britain. We hope the political situation in that direction has changed, and we hope we can look for the support of the Prime Minister to see that it will be changed in the future. With regard to the delay in traffic, which the Minister does not think serious, I had the pleasure the other day of visiting Caledon, and was discussing the advisability with the farmers of the early fallowing of their lands, but I saw along the line great congestion. The farmers of Caledon and Bredasdorp could not get their fertilizer in time, and a considerable amount of grain was lying in the open. If rain had fallen then the crops would have been damaged, because the Railway Department could not supply the railway facilities to deal with them. If the Minister had ordered these engines in England, and they were like Class 17A, he would have been able to shift this traffic, and we should not have had this deplorable experience.

With regard to the newspaper flourishes to which my hon. friend has referred, I must say that I am surprised at his attitude. I know what my hon. friend thinks when it comes to political flourishes in his own party press, but he cannot hold the department responsible for what is stated in the press.

It was a pure Baldwin stunt when it took place.

Surely the hon. member knows the methods of our newspapers by this time. They send their reporters down to obtain full particulars.

That is not good enough.

Very well, I shall apply the acid test. I am prepared to lay on the Table the actual running record of these four engines. These Baldwin engines have given us excellent service, and if we could have had them repeated in the other 23, the position at the present time would have been very satisfactory. The hon. member has asked if the British engines have given satisfaction. Yes, they have. He also wants to know whether the German engines have given satisfaction.

No, no; that was not the point.

Both the British and the German engines have given excellent service. There have been minor faults, and we have had to make adjustments in the workshops. My hon. friend asks, what are you doing about this? Why are you not purchasing in Great Britain? I am carrying out the policy of my predecessor, the hon. member for Cape Town Central) (Mr. Jagger) Just let me remind him of a reply which he gave on March 24th,1921, when I asked him for a statement whether it was correct that although certain railway orders could be more cheaply executed on the Continent, those orders were for reasons of sentiment given to British firms. This is the reply as reported in the “Cape Times”—

On April 6th Mr. du Toit asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours how many engines and how much other rolling stock had the Rail-way Administration of the Union imported since August, 1919, and to what value, and whether the necessary tenders were advertized in the world’s markets. Mr. Jagger replied that 160engines to the value of £2,100,000, 169 coaches to the value of £1,047,000, and 2,714 waggons to the value of £1,899,000 had been imported. He stated that most of this stock was ordered during the war, and tenders were invited as far as possible under war conditions. Contracts were given out to the lowest tenderers subject to quality being satisfactory, and provided the contractor guaranteed delivery within a reason-able period. On a later occasion, July. 9th, 1921,the then Minister of Railways and Harbours gave a similar reply. I might also remind him of a reply which he gave to a question which I put to him on March 23rd, 1922. He then said—

I may remind the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the action of my predecessor in starving the essential services has been responsible for some of the delays. The then Minister, in his reply on that occasion, further stated—

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort now comes and appeals to the Prime Minister for a change of policy. Would my hon. friend, in his enthusiasm for a change of policy, introduce a Bill to alter the Act of Union? At the present time, quality and price being favourable, the order is placed in the cheapest market.

My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours does not carry that out entirely. He does not take into account past experience. You might have had the lowest price from these other engine works, but it is not a question of design only; it is a question of material and workmanship in these engines. It is perfectly clear to me that you have not thought of the same quality of material and workmanship in the new engines from the Baldwin people. I would have gone very largely on my past experience of the American engines, which was not very satisfactory. Price would not have tempted me in a case of that kind. What we are complaining of in Cape Town at the present time is that we are short of engine power. If these engines have come out from good makers and could have moved the traffic, there would not have been that complaint. In the Cape Town docks recently a steamer arrived with a cargo of fertilizers. The stuff could not be moved from the docks, and it was lying there for some days, I believe at the importer’s expense, simply for want of engine power. I think my hon. friend is to blame for not taking the past experience of the railways into account when he ordered these engines.

My hon. friend the Minister has shown a sad falling away from grace. When he came into office, and for a long time afterwards, we on our side really appreciated very much indeed his splendid testimonials to the magnificent work done by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) his predecessor in office, and owing to the policy and actions of the hon. member, for which many of us have had to pay and gladly pay, because we knew he did the right thing, the Minister has managed to turn up a surplus or two. Now he is departing from these sound lines. I doubt whether we are going to get a surplus this year. The Minister should remember that February 15th is past now. I understand that he has been doing a good deal of overtime work at railway centres like De Aar, etc. I wish the Minister would remember that he is back in the House of Parliament again, and that he has no right to put things into one’s mouth which were not said by us at all, and that line of conduct is really not conducive to sound argument in this House. He said that I had complained of inefficient design. I do not know anything about designs of railway engines. What I did criticize was, first of all, his having accepted inefficient engines, not designs, but 100 per cent, inefficient engines as far as I could make out.

Surely you do not suggest I could have known that.

I do not say that the Minister could have known that, but I do say that he has not learnt by experience. The point I make is this, that I said nothing about inefficient design, but I do object to the accepting of tenders for engines which have proved to be inefficient.

Where did they prove inefficient?

By breaking down entirely and not doing their work

I told you the four engines gave us perfect satisfaction.

I am talking about this particular lot, the 100 per cent. inefficients which have arrived in this country. The question I raised was whether the Railway Board are going to enter into a policy of taking an inefficient design at a cheaper price. The other question of whether you prefer American or British engines is purely a question of experience.

Surely the hon. member (Mr. Close) realizes that where a firm is the successful tenderer, we supply that firm with the specifications and detailed drawings. That firm must build the engine to that design, and carry out all the specifications. How, then, can the hon. member talk about imitation designs?

Lou told us that yourself.

I said that the design to which the engines were constructed had proved eminently successful. I would ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) whether the fact of his having had rather an unfortunate experience in the past during the war, is to damn all American companies? I want to say again that the designs to which these engines were constructed were to our entire satisfaction. I do not see how the officials of the Department or the Administration can be held responsible for an unfortunate defect which has now appeared.

There is no doubt that during the period of time referred to by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), when the present Minister of Railways sat at the feet of Gamaliel, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), he was really doing well: but since then, whatever the reason, there has been a change. I only hope that the breezes which are blowing at the present time will bring the Minister back to a more serious and cautious state of mind. The Minister is extremely clever in avoiding a direct answer. He said that the Baldwin engines were perfect, that is, what they call the “Mountain” and “Pacific” engines. He has told us that they carried out their trial experiments with one engine to Beaufortt West, and the other to Johannesburg.

I said that was done as a test.

I would ask him if this was not one of the reasons which actuated the Department in ordering these engines? I would ask him on how many occasions did they do that work?

I never claimed that as a permanent thing for these engines.

Are not English engines, the ones I mentioned before, called 17A, doing equally well the work that the Baldwin engines were brought out to do, and causing very much less expense in repairs in the shops?

British engines, as I have indicated, give us satisfactory service, but they have not got the power and force which these bigger engines have. I gave the test run as a proof of the excellence of these particular engines. They are used in general traffic as we require them.

I want to ask the Minister if he can give us a little more detailed information in regard to these particular engines. Do I understand that 23 engines were delivered, and that they all have been put into commission?

Eighteen have been delivered. The others, I understand, are on the water.

Have the whole 18 been put into commission?

I have not got the papers with me, but I gave the information a few days ago. I believe the position to be this. We ordered 23 engines; 18 have come to hand, and, as far as I can remember, 13 are in the shops at the present time.

The answer is this. Out of 23 engines ordered, 18 have developed a fault, namely, a cracked bridge casting, and a large number of these engines have been stopped for repair, while others are being worked under supervision.

So I take it that the whole consignment has turned out to be unsatisfactory? They have all developed the same fault. That is to say the chassis has developed defects which has made it necessary to repair the chassis. Is that not so fundamental a defect as to make it desirable to reject the whole consignment and to ask these people to make delivery of good engines? I am certain of this, that if the Minister were in the motor trade and twenty-three motor cars were delivered to him and every one developed a radical defect in the chassis, all in the same place, the inference would be irresistible that that manufacturer was turning out work not only unsatisfactory but absolutely shoddy. I am not going to criticize the Minister at this stage for ordering these engines, but it is the future one is looking to. Surely the Administration has the right, if work is delivered which is fundamentally unsatisfactory, to reject the whole consignment? That would certainly be the case in the business world. Is it not better for the Minister to take into consideration the rejection of the consignment of engines and order other engines to take their place? In other words, if new engines on delivery into this country developed defects of that sort is it not better to face the position straight away and order a fresh supply of engines?

I can only say that I shall be guided by my technical officers in consultation with the legal advisers of the Crown.

I would like to ask the Minister, when he called for tenders for the specially designed engines, whether he called for them only in America or in other parts of the world as well.

All through the world.

The result of this debate, I think, has shown very clearly that the members of the Railway Board are working under a misapprehension. They have got the idea into their heads that the lowest price is the cheapest. The whole base of the trouble is that the Railway Board have not enough experience. I hope this will make it perfectly clear to the Railway Board that low-priced forms of machinery are generally the dearest. I would like to point out one other serious matter about this question of railway engines. We understand that of the eighteen engines delivered, thirteen are in the railway shops and the others are working under supervision. I would like to point out to the Minister that it is not only a question of goods; it is a question of human life that is concerned if these engines are defective. I would urge that in future when considering any tenders for any vital railway requirements, the question of quality should bear a little more weight and the question of price should not bear the entire weight—that the dearest article is probably the lowest priced one.

Would the Minister be prepared to tell the House what the cost was to the Government of these engines landed here and what the cost would have been of the Baldwin engines and of the English engines?

I am quite prepared to answer that if it is put on the paper.

I would like to know, for instance, whether the 10 per cent. really covers the question of repairs at all.

I have already given the House the assurance that the whole matter is being gone into at the present time. I cannot anticipate at this stage what the cost will be, but I can assure the House that the interests of the State will be protected. I am prepared, at a later stage, to give further information.

Will the Minister get the information and give it to the House as quickly as possible? This side of the House has been extremely kind to him.

Have they?

Yes, in assisting him in getting out of the extraordinary mess in which he has placed himself. He ought to be only too anxious to give any information.

I have a suggestion to make to the Minister, and that is, if he has not already paid the 90 per cent. of the cost, will he hold up that money and deduct the cost of repairs?

I can only repeat that the interests of the Administration are safe in the hands of the Government.

We are not so sure of that after the sleepers transaction.

I want to ask the Minister whether he has had any complaints from the Johannesburg and Pretoria Chambers of Commerce in regard to continual breakages in the handling of goods on the railways, and whether he has satisfied himself whether there is good cause for those complaints, and to what cause he attributes the increase in the careless handling of goods.

Yes, complaints have been made, and the position, unfortunately, is that merchants usually do not consign these breakable articles at railway risk. They prefer to pay the lower rate and consign them at owners’ risk. I regret to say there is always a certain percentage of breakage, but I am not aware that complaints have increased. The necessary action has been taken to bring to the notice of the staff concerned the necessity to exercise great care in handling this class of goods. The merchants have it largely in their own hands.

Do I understand that if merchants are prepared to pay the higher rate the Administration will give better attention?

No, I say that when goods are carried at railway risk, and breakage occurs, we are responsible.

Yes, but the inference is that you will take more care. That is a reflection on the department that you do not take care.

I have allowed the question, and answers have been given, but I do not think I can allow a discussion on it.

Is it not a fact that where goods are carried at the risk of the owner less care is taken than otherwise?

No, I certainly do not admit that.

There is the question of level crossings. The Minister said a commission had been set up to go into the matter of the danger of level crossings and they were starting their investigations in the Transvaal.

The hon. member must take another opportunity to raise this point.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 4, “Running Expenses,” £284,159,

Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Minister now. All I want to know is whether this commission will come to the Cape and Natal and make investigations there.

The question of level crossings is a very serious one along the railway line here at Observatory, Rondebosch, Pinelands and other parts. The question of level crossings involves a positive danger to human life.

We have been fortunate in getting the services as chairman of Attorney Bell from Johannesburg, who, for many years, was the legal adviser of the Administration.

Did you not dispense with his services?

You have had to go back to him.

The Chambers of Commerce and all interested will be given notice of the visit of the commission to the different provinces.

I do not want to be parochial, but the questions involved are of purely local interest and importance, and I suggest that when the commission comes here there should be somebody appointed by the Municipal Council or other local body to assist as assessor for the Cape lines here, and the same thing might be done in Natal. It would give more general satisfaction. Not one of these gentlemen appointed has knowledge of local conditions here.

The hon. member is now discussing the question of level crossings. These do not fall under the head of running expenses.

I do not want to bring it under the wrong head or to discuss it, but I just want to bring it to the Minister’s mind.

If you will allow me, I will reply to it now.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister said he would be willing to reply—

I cannot allow discussion.

At the end of the page you will see other accounts. I take it that running expenses refer to all operations connected there with. Do not gatemen come under this as well?

If the hon. member will allow me—

If you will allow me to put the whole of my question, Mr. Chairman. Is it not possible for any hon. member to ask the Minister what he desires to do to alter that system?

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) wants to know whether “other accounts” are not included? I may point out that nothing at all is voted under “other accounts.”

Might I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to “other staff”£248,000. How is it possible for us to know, with due respect to the Chairman, these men are not included?

If the hon. member had read his vote he would know where they are.

May I point out to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that if he refers to Head 5—the next head, under account 72, he will find “signalmen and gate-keepers.”

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the Minister whether anything can be done to improve the running over that section of the line which is between Worcester and Mossel Bay. From my experience it is true you have engines that can run, but they can only run down hill. Cannot something be done not to diminish the time of the schedule, but to keep to the time of the schedule?

The position is that the condition of the line while perfectly safe, does not permit us to put heavier engines on the rails, and, under these circumstances, with the great increase of traffic that has taken place, the officers find it most difficult to keep regular time. As he knows, we are re-ballasting and re-laying the line, and when that is completed we shall be able to deal with the whole matter satisfactorily.

May I ask the Minister whether it is on that section that the cracked engines are being run?

Oh dear, no! These engines are of the very heavy type, and cannot be used on that line.

There has been a good deal of disquietude in the mind of the public about the safety of the Gouritz River bridge. Perhaps the Minister may make a statement.

I am glad the hon. member has asked me that question. I may say that I asked the chief civil engineer to report on the bridge. He assured me that the bridge is perfectly safe. We do not run two engines over the bridge simultaneously, and I can assure the hon. member that the bridge is perfectly safe.

Perhaps the Minister will explain why no less than 12½per cent. more is voted for drivers and firemen? Why is there this increase?

We would like to have your ruling on this, Mr. Chairman. I want to compare the increase under this vote to that under Head 5. I want to know whether I shall be able to do it under Head 4 or under Head 5.

There is no doubt a feeling of anxiety with regard to the Gouritz River bridge, but I understand that the department has a report of some years’ standing from the consulting engineer who designed this bridge that, if the pace does not exceed 8 miles per hour, it is absolutely safe. But I would like to know if the same condition applies if heavier engines ran over the bridge.

That represents the position. When the whole length of line has been reballasted and re-laid the position will have to be gone into afresh. With regard to the question put by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) the position is as I have indicated—we have done more mileage, and naturally we have had to employ more drivers and firemen.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) wanted to know whether he may now compare the expenses under Head 4 with Head 5. The hon. member may do so.

Under Head 4 we have a percentage increased expenditure compared with the increased expenditure of engine mileage which is 6.4 to 13.6, but on the next vote, which is a smaller vote, the proportion is as 5 to 9. I would like the Minister to explain the difference between engine and train mileage.

In the one case running expenses refer to drivers, firemen, guards, conductors and other members of the staff who are all connected with the actual running of trains. Under traffic expenses, we provide for increased staff, but not proportionately, because the station staff are able to do more in the same working time. In the first case it is the actual train miles done by the men in charge.

I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware that on the Cape-Natal line the journey from Maritzburg to Franklin takes one hour longer that it did before. We are told that the bridges on that line are too light, and that the heavier engines have to slow down over the culverts and the bridges. May I ask if it will not be possible to strengthen the bridges, and thus enable the train service to be speeded up.

I have no information on the first point. On the second point it is a matter for Parliament to deal with—capital expenditure—the strengthening of bridges. I shall be glad to go into the first point.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 5, “Traffic expenses,” £228,400,

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to the danger of level-crossing fatalities. Recently two people were killed at Clairwood, making the third fatality at this crossing. On the Pietermaritzburg-Greytown line the main road crosses the line in several places, and there are three very dangerous crossings. Is the Minister going to do something to safeguard life on that road? There have been very narrow escapes there recently. These fatalities are becoming far too numerous, and I would like to know what the Minister is going to do to safeguard the public more than is now being done.

I should like a little more information from the Minister about the discharge of a number of white men at Bloemfontein station about which I recently asked a question. From the 1st December to the meeting of Parliament about 30 labourers were discharged, and, according to the return of the Minister, 22 have already been re-employed. I would, however, like to have a little more information about the circumstances. The Minister stated that the 30 persons had been employed for special work and were discharged when the work was finished. If that is so, then it is certainly a great pity that it was done in such a way.

The hon. member can ask a question, but not go into the matter further.

Under No. 71, extra expenditure goods labourers, I think I am entitled to go into it.

The hon. member may proceed.

The young fellows, although they were appointed for special work, were suddenly informed that they were no longer required. I think that the Administration might certainly have informed them a little sooner how long the work would last, or at any rate given them notice a couple of days before their discharge. The young men for a moment did not know what to do. They had made arrangements for lodging, etc., until the end of the month, and were suddenly discharged in the middle of the month. Now in connection with the appointment, I just want to point out that Mr. Beavan, acting assistant general manager, stated to the “Volksblad” that he had made a mistake with reference to a few of these people because they were not appointed for special work, but as permanent white labourers. Whether the men would have been re-employed if I had not taken steps in the matter I do not know, but the mistake was made, and I want to ask the Minister to enquire whether a mistake was not made with the other persons. The people were only re-employed after their meeting of protest and I had brought the matter to the notice of the Minister. I asked the Minister further in my question how many natives were appointed in the room of the white men discharged. His answer was that at Bloemfontein station no natives were employed in the place of the whites. That is true, I know. That was not my question. A shunter at the station told me that two of his white boys were taken away and two natives brought from another part of the station to do their work. No new natives were appointed, but it does not have a good effect if the work which is to-day being done by white men is to-morrow done by natives. The white boys naturally ask: Why are we discharged and the natives do our work? In the interests of the policy of civilized labour in general, and of young men in particular, I want to ask the Minister to make further enquiry as to the circumstances of the discharge of these 30 people at Bloemfontein.

Will the Minister kindly explain why in item 70—goods superintendents, stationmasters and clerks, £1,624,285, the additional amount to be voted is only £2,559, while on item 71, goods, labourers and porters, £698,416, an additional £86.996 is wanted, and in item 73, checkers, £425,785, the Minister requires an additional £26,984? I can understand that no additional expenditure would be required so far as goods superintendents are concerned, but one would imagine that with increased traffic, more clerks would be needed.

The increased tonnage carried does not affect the supervisory staff—the station-masters and clerks—

It would affect the clerks.

If you carry increased tonnage you must have additional labourers to handle the traffic. That is the explanation. I am afraid I can never satisfy my hon. friend, but if he were in charge of the railways he could not, because of the growth of traffic, promptly increase the number of stationmasters and clerks.

That is not an answer.

With more traffic we require more checkers, but not necessarily more clerks. I have taken a note of the level crossings referred to by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane).

I should like to know why branch line rates are charged over the railway from Worcester to Fore Bay Junction, which is no more a branch line than the railway from Klipplaat to Oudtshoorn, or from Port Elizabeth to Graaff-Reinet. The consequence of this differentiation is that the Cape Town traders are handicapped as compared with the Port Elizabeth traders. In other words, the Minister charges a higher rate for carrying goods from Cape Town to Oudtshoorn than from Port Elizabeth to Oudtshoorn, which is not fair. How can he expect Cape Town to flourish under conditions of that kind? It is most unjust. I have already called the Minister’s attention to it. There is far more traffic on the line from Oudtshoorn to Mossel Bay than on the other line. We don’t ask for a privileged rate, but the same rate should be charged on the Worcester-Mossel Bay section as on the line from the east.

It is purely a financial matter. Unfortunately, the Worcester-Mossel Bay line is showing a fairly considerable loss.

It used to pay under the old company.

The hon. member knows under what conditions they operated the line. Does he suggest that I should pay the wages the company did?

It is not for me to make suggestions—I want only fair play.

We are paying the men on that section at the same rates as employees on other sections, and it would be indefensible to pay them a different wage.

There are probably too many men.

No, we were very careful to ensure that the line would be run under the most economic conditions, but the cost has gone up, and the hon. member would be the first to admit that that could not be avoided. I hope the time will come when it will be possible for me to wipe out what, to a certain extent, is an anomaly, and places Cape Town merchants in a worse position than the Port Elizabeth merchants. At present, however, I cannot sacrifice the revenue, so the matter will have to stand over.

†*The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has raised the matter of the discharge of certain white labourers at Bloemfontein. I have already said something about the matter in answer to a question by the hon. member. During times of pressure we have, not only in Bloemfontein, but practically at all the big stations, employed people to do temporary work, and in accordance with the policy of the Administration, white men were employed. It is, of course, very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the workmen, because the work is only temporary, but I am assured by the responsible officials that they stated with the greatest precision to the labourers concerned that they were only being employed temporarily, and that as soon as the work was completed they would have to be discharged. That assurance has been given me. It is unfortunate that there was some mistake with five of the labourers, and the responsible official has acknowledged this, and as soon as the hon. member brought the matter to the Administration’s notice, the mistake was rectified.

Can temporary labourers not be told a day or two beforehand that their services will no longer be required?

I appreciate the point, and will try to see that that is done as far as possible. The hon. member will, however, understand that we do not know how the traffic will actually come, and that it sometimes stops suddenly. We have the same class of work at the docks, where the rush of business may suddenly stop. I shall, however, bear the hint in mind so that the responsible officials can give notice to the persons concerned as far as possible. As regards the employment of natives already in the service in the place of the temporary labourers whose services were no longer required, the hon. member will understand that it is absolutely necessary that that shall be done, unless we are to depart from the policy which is being followed, viz., that not a single native in the service shall be discharged. It is not our policy to dismiss natives. When a native leaves the service for any cause, his place is filled up, but natives in the service are not discharged. The result is that where the services of a native are no longer required in a certain department, he is sent to another part of the station. It is a fixed policy, in Bloemfontein as well, to give employment to white men as openings occur. Rates are still high because they are connected with the maintenance of the line, which is still very costly.

Can the Minister give us an explanation of the very big percentage increase in item 82, stores and equipment, £64,526, for which an additional sum of £16,568 is asked for? This is an increase of 33⅓ per cent. on the original estimates of last year, and it is out of proportion to either the train mileage returns or traffic returns, and seems to show that there is a certain amount of slackness in the Administration.

The increase is spread over the whole financial year. It is a question of increased traffic, and to carry that you must supply the men with more stores and equipment.

The hon. Minister did not quite catch my point. I think it was last June he said £47,000 was enough for this service. We find a few months afterwards he wants £64,000, an increase of 33⅓ per cent. He says it is due to increased traffic, but the ordinary business idea is that when traffic increases expenses do not usually increase at a bigger rate than the trade. Under whatever test you like to put it, you have not had an advance of 33⅓ in any item. Therefore, you are spending more per pound sterling of business done than you were last year. There is no excuse for it.

My hon. friend forgets that this is a State undertaking. He talks about June of last year, but he forgets that the main estimates were drawn towards the end of the year 1925. It is not, like an ordinary business, able to make provision from time to time. We have to frame our estimates about six months before the beginning of the next financial year. There are bound to be difficulties which we cannot anticipate.

What was the cause of the increase under 83 (1) of £9,879, an increase of more than 50 per cent. on the original estimate. That cannot be put down for increased traffic, as it is the working and maintenance of cool chambers at Table Bay docks.

That is due to the efficiency of the railway administration. A large portion of the store has been placed earlier at the disposal of the public.

Or want of foresight.

I don’t understand that. You have had less traffic than you anticipated to the cold stores. Therefore you must have been working less and the costs ought to have been lower.

No, as I pointed out, a larger portion of the chambers has been placed at the disposal of the public than anticipated.

You increase construction, but there has been no increase in traffic. The fruit sent down this year is less.

I would like to refer again to the question of level crossings. We were told we could discuss the item under 72.

The hon. member may discuss anything under the Head, but not policy.

Is the Minister going to continue putting up these guillotine type of gates which emanate from the north? These gates come down on the top of one’s head when crossing the line and they are dangerous. I know one or two cases of actual accidents with them. I ask him to look into the question of the level crossing between Raapenburg and Pinelands station. There is a crossing there on the main road from the southern suburbs to the country, and a short time ago, and I think it is still so, there was not a full-time gateman there. It is left at dangerous times after dark and there have been some very narrow escapes at that crossing. I ask him if he ought not, in the interests of the public, to put a bridge there without waiting for the report he is discussing. At present he can acquire the ground without any building on it. If he delays long he will find the place will be built upon and to get access for a bridge he will have to expropriate not only land but buildings as well.

With regard to the question of these booms, the hon. member must not forget that there is a warning bell, and if the travelling public will not pay sufficient attention to the warning bells, we cannot help it. Many motorists and other travellers do not seem to realize that a railway crossing is dangerous, and if they will not realize it, and slacken down on crossing the line, accidents will continue to occur. It is impossible, in a country with twelve thousand miles of railway, to construct overhead bridges everywhere. The capital cost would be enormous and the country could not bear the cost. The public must learn to be more careful on crossing a railway line. With regard to Raapenburg, if the local body concerned is prepared to pay half the cost, I am prepared to go into the matter. They must approach us and inform us that they will pay half the cost.

I have sympathy with my friend but this is a dangerous crossing and there is no doubt that if something is not done there will be a pretty bad accident there. I would suggest, I tried to do it myself, he should get the local authorities to contribute something to the maintenance of the watchman there. I saw an accident nearer Somerset West at a perfectly open crossing where a man was killed and his wife was injured. It happened to be raining at the time, a stormy day, and they had put the flaps round the car and did not take the trouble to look out and a train came along. That is how accidents happen. I suggest he should try and do something in this particular case.

I would just remark, talking about the guillotine versus a gate for the level crossing. The Minister says you must listen for the bell. It is a very slight bell and, unless the motor was one of the Government’s £1,360 cars it is probable the engine of the motor car is making more noise than the bell. If you put a gate there you can see it when it is closed, and there is not the same likelihood of an accident happening. I do not know whether that crossing is in the boundary of any authority. It is the dividing line between two municipalities and I hope the Minister will get into touch with both and do something for the public. I would now like to ask the Minister’s view on an entirely different question. I think it comes under item 69. The railways pay certain commissions to overseas tourist agencies for getting traffic and the position is if you are an overseas tourist agency in London, New York, Berlin or Rotterdam you can get your commission, but if you are so unwise as to put a sub-office in Cape Town—

I should like to ask the Minister if this item includes any money spent on this matter.

I am afraid not.

I am afraid I cannot allow any debate on it then.

In this item of £22,256 we are voting upon is any part in payment of commission to tourists’ agents forgetting traffic?

The question is whether it is any part of the £568.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is in the £22,256 we are voting upon.

It is only the matter of the increase of £568 you can deal with.

The reason he wants the items increased is because he pays these miscellaneous amounts.

I can only be guided by the Minister and he says this sum of £568 does not include any money spent on that point. So I cannot allow this discussion.

Can I ask the Minister to lay on the table the items included in this £568? It must include quite a lot of items.

If the hon. member will indicate what information he desires in regard to tourists, I shall be glad to give it to him.

I want to know why the Minister pays overseas tourist agencies commission on the traffic they bring, but if they set up an office in South Africa they automatically forfeit their right to receive pay for any traffic they bring.

The question is quite irrelevant. I cannot allow the Minister to answer it.

I want to know whether expenditure for platforms at country stations on branch lines are included under Heading 83—“other station expenditure”?

I am not certain, but I think it is possible.

The hon. member can put his question.

Then I should life to ask the Minister whether his attention has ever been directed to the difficulties existing in connection with getting on and alighting from trains at small outside stations on branch lines. There are, of course, some stations on branch lines and they usually have platforms where one can get on or alight from a train. But at most places it is particularly difficult, if not dangerous to do so, especially for aged people. At the halts and small stations there are no platforms, and there are no means at all to assist in alighting from a train.

The hon. member can ask a question, but not deal with the matter of platforms and other similar things.

Then I want to ask the Minister if he will give his attention to the increase of facilities on the branch lines for getting on and alighting from trains?

I am sorry that I cannot comply with the wishes of the hon. member. It is impossible to build high platforms at the various outside stations. It would entail a large capital expenditure. The number of people who make use of outside stations is small and I, therefore, fear that I cannot give the hon. member the assurance that platforms will be built there.

In connection with the level crossings, I wish to impress upon the Minister the point that I was touching upon when I was interrupted, and that is that the level crossings, for instance, in some of the urban centres, present difficulties of a special and peculiar character, for instance on the suburban line here and in other places, but particularly here. I do submit that the Minister, in addition to having witnesses called to give local opinion about these crossings, should have either on the commission or as an assessor associated with the commission, somebody who has got real expert knowledge of the conditions here. You have crossings like those at Belmont Road, Rondebosch, at Observatory Road and close to Newlands. I would suggest that it would be advisable, for instance, to let the municipality nominate somebody with special knowledge of the conditions in Cape Town. Is the Minister prepared to consider a suggestion either to enlarge the scope of the commission by adding people of this kind, or will be consider having assessors to assist the commission in weighing the evidence with regard to these crossings?

I am afraid it will not be possible to accede to the request of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and appoint an additional member as an assessor to the commission. I may point out that the third member has been appointed in consultation with all the provincial administrations. My hon. friend will understand that if we were to appoint an assessor at Cape Town, one at Durban and others elsewhere, there would be no continuity in the work of the commission. He may rest assured that the commission will visit the Western Province and the Cape Peninsula and go into the problems here in consultation with all the local bodies.

I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will look into the question of congestion of traffic in the Cape Town dock area. There have been very serious complaints in the last few months about congestion in the dock area. I am told that in particular timber and other heavy items like that have been very much delayed owing to the Department not being able to move the traffic.

I shall certainly look into that.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 14, “Interest on Capital,” £98,540, put and agreed to.

Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and Other Funds,” £5,180, put and agreed to.

Head 26 (Harbours), “Interest on Capital,” £15,000, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railway and Harbour Revenue Funds to be reported, without amendment.

Expenditure from Loan Funds.

On Head 2, “New Works on Open Lines,” £324,762.

I notice that you have had to increase the vote for the Citrus-Plaston line. That is going to be a very expensive business, over £80,000 altogether, as far as I can see. Would it not have been cheaper to have gone from Nelspruit, on the southern side of the bridge? It is purely an agricultural line to the White River Settlement. I surveyed the place myself and it was my idea to make the line from Nelspruit Station and go right up. Of course, it would have had to be a narrow gauge line. I know that my hon. friend is rather prejudiced against narrow gauge lines.

I am.

This country has only a certain amount of money to spend, and you have got to make the most of it. In Belgium and other countries they work narrow gauge lines very efficiently and carry more traffic on those lines than we have to carry in this country. A narrow gauge line would have carried all the traffic in this part of the country very well indeed.

In regard to the question of the take-off of the line, that is a matter which the late Railway Board decided.

I do not think so.

The hon. member is right—it was the present board. At any rate, it is a matter which the board went into and on which they came to the conclusion that the present take-off would be the most suitable spot. As regards the actual cost, that is an underestimate of the engineers. They found much harder stuff than they expected to meet, and as a result we have had to provide additional money.

I want to refer to new works on open lines. I must say the call is too heavy—£324,000 for new works. There is nothing put down for betterment and nothing for renewals fund. In case of restoration like this a certain amount should come out of renewals fund.

This is additional.

Take Item No. 7, orchard. That in the Brown Book is Item 59. It is going to cost exactly the same, £11,415, but in the Brown Book, £550 is going to come out of renewals and £5.563 out of loan and betterment, but under this nothing is provided.

In the Brown Book, of course, attention is given to the amounts to be charged to renewals. The allocation is made by the chief accountant. This is additional expenditure during this financial year which we cannot charge to renewals fund, but which must be charged to capital.

It is not additional expenditure; the estimated cost is the same in each case.

The provision has been made in the Brown Book for the actual amount.

It will not be superseded by this?

No.

I wish to call the Minister’s attention to Item No. 22, substitution of subways for footbridges at certain stations on the Cape suburban line. I quite understand from the Administration’s point of view that there is probably a great necessity for this alteration. When you have a subway of any kind, as the Minister knows, certain conditions are likely to ensue. Unless these subways are supervised and kept clean trouble and nuisance may arise. At one of the stations trouble of a very unpleasant character occurred in one of the subways. Some subways are kept clean, others are not. I hope special instructions will be given, and, if necessary, a special staff detailed as a cleaning and a supervising staff to attend to the subways. It is a very important matter and particularly at night time. The Minister ought to bear in mind the necessity for some sort of supervision and, if necessary, protection.

I will certainly look into that, but I hope it is not going to mean additional expenditure.

I should like to refer to Item 21—additional office accommodation.

I hope no unnecessary money will be spent on this attic storey. I take it that in a very few years you are going to pull the whole of that building down and put up a station. The Minister will remember that last session I complained that the whole of what I may call the exchequer staff offices are simply corrugated iron. You have thousands of pounds, and great safes simply protected by corrugated iron that an ordinary schoolboy could pull down, so that I hope no extravagance will be allowed with this attic. I have great sympathy with any man who has to work there. Perhaps the Minister could tell us within what period he intends to pull this place down and build a proper sanitary station.

Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us in regard to Item 29—water supplies at various stations. When the Minister puts down an expenditure of £5,000 and then intends to spend £25,000, we are entitled to some explanation.

I want to ask the Minister in connection with the widening of the overhead bridge at Salt River Station whether the Railway Administration is bearing all the cost or whether a portion thereof is being borne by the Municipality of Cape Town. In this connection I should also like information in connection with the general policy of the Administration as regards the building of over-head bridges, and on what conditions bridges will be built at other places where they are required. I should like to know the policy of the Administration, i.e., whether the Administration makes provision itself or whether it is expected that the public should contribute in each case.

I see in Item No. 14, Worcester to Fore Bay, you intend to spend on re-laying this line £385,000. How much of this is going to renewals fund and betterment fund? It is the old Cape Central line, of course. If you are going to charge all this to loan fund and capital account, it will be a tremendous amount.

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I may say that about half the cost will be debited to renewals and half to loan fund. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), the expenditure has been occasioned by the water supply failing at some stations, and provision having had to be made at other stations. The cost is spread over the whole system. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) advocating the pulling down of the Cape Town railway station. I always understood that the chambers of commerce, of which I understand the hon. member is a very valued member, is very closely interested in the control of capital expenditure, and rightly so. But now the hon. member suggests that we should pull down a very valuable building, and he talks airily of putting up a new station. Where, I ask, is the money to come from?

Where is the money for the Johannesburg station to come from?

From the mines.

I leave the two hon. members to fight that question out between themselves. I have, I may say, no intention of pulling down the Cape Town railway station. The conditions under which some of the staff are working there are, I agree, very unsatisfactory. We are spending £23,000, as a result of which I hope the staff will be better housed. Let me repeat that requests for capital expenditure are made on all sides, but hon. members on all sides of the House will simply have to face the fact that this country and the railway administration cannot keep on piling up capital expenditure.

We have seen no traces of your policy so far.

No, for the simple reason that hon. members have been clamorous in asking for more expenditure.

Your own people.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has just asked for a new Cape Town railway station.

I have not.

I hope the hon. member will assist the Government in their very difficult task of controlling capital expenditure.

†*The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) asks about the overhead bridge at Salt River. As regards the new work, i.e., the widening of the bridge, the municipality of Cape Town contributes its share. He also asked what the general policy of the Administration was with regard to overhead bridges. It is said that if there are available funds—I emphasize this— and the local body concerned is prepared to bear half the cost, then the Railway Administration is prepared to undertake the building of an overhead bridge. If there is not sufficient money, then it cannot be done, and if the public body will not pay half it cannot be done either. The question is whether the time has not arrived to ask the public to contribute a larger share in respect of such works. In the past only half was paid, but the question is whether the public should not pay more and the Administration less, e.g., two-thirds by the public, and one-third by the Administration. If the question of capital expenditure is riot placed under proper control, then I fear that the burdens of the Railway Administration and of those who use the railway will be too great. I will tell the hon. member that if there are particular interests in which he is concerned and they are prepared to make a proposal on the basis of paying half the costs, then the Administration will be prepared to do the work if the necessary funds can be found.

Some of the items are so worded—they are worded so generally—that I am not sure that the item about which I want to ask is covered or not. I asked about the matter last year, and I was then reassured by the Minister—I refer to the buildings being erected near the Castle. They are a hideous blot. Can I discuss this on the vote?

No, not on this vote.

Well, then, I will take the opportunity at some other time.

I am sorry I am quite unabashed, and I still want the information I am trying to obtain—whether the railway department in the new alterations that are going on at the Cape Town railway station is going to make any provision for the treasury of the railway department—I do not know what they call it—which is at present housed in a corrugated iron building. I should like to know that that, very important department is going to be housed in a proper way. The Minister has expressed surprise that I do not consider the Cape Town railway station up-to-date and efficient. If the Minister would go down and look at it, he would see at once that to house any undertaking in a building of that nature is impossible. There is one set of offices where you climb up a stair and go over an open roof to get to them. The conditions there are terrible, and how the clerks work there and can possibly stand it passes my understanding. I do not consider, with due regard to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), that there is anything extraordinary in asking that something should be done to that station of a permanent nature which is going to make it efficient for railway purposes.

May I invite the Minister’s attention to item 16—the relaying of the Cato Ridge-Clairwood line—which is a comparatively new one? Why is it necessary to relay this considerable mileage at such an early stage?

In reply to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), I may say that the amount is due to wear and tear on the curves on this particular section.

Take this very list; here you have the Kalabaskraal-Saldanha Bay line, which was of narrow gauge, and we are spending £109,000 on widening the gauge to 3 ft. 6 ins. The Minister might have used the money to extend the lines in some other direction, or he could have saved the money. These are all beautiful sentiments of the Minister, but does he carry them out?

On item 16 may I ask whether this is in any way due to split rails?

No, it is due to wear and tear on the curves.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to item No. 6, £16,951. restoration of Kraai River bridge. I would like to know whether this is for a new permanent bridge, which has just been completed, or does it also include the amount expended on temporary bridges which were washed away?

It is the whole cost.

In connection with the Vote, “erection of houses and waiting rooms,” I want to ask the Minister if he knows that although most of the railway houses in the low veld are particularly good, there are quite a number, especially in the unhealthy region at Komatipoort, which are not of the best, but of the worst that the S.A.R. has built. The houses in that area ought to be particularly good, because it is a malaria district, and some of the houses are not entirely proof against mosquitoes. I want to ask the Minister to make special provision for this. The waiting rooms at Nelspruit—I think the Minister has himself seen them—are entirely unsuitable and unhealthy. Will an improvement be made?

I quite agree with the hon. member, and am quite aware that as regards the low veld the houses ought to be as good as possible in view of the conditions. We give particular attention to it, and if the hon. member will bring the special cases to my notice I will go into them.

†The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has raised the question of narrow versus standard gauge. I do not propose to go into that matter at this stage, except to say that the hon. member underestimates the savings which are effected by the conversion, savings due to the fact that there is no longer any necessity for the double handling of goods, and the free interchange of rolling stock. I could give most interesting figures on that point. I have gone very carefully into the matter and I am convinced that the broadening of the Kalabaskraal line will not only be satisfactory and beneficial to the people concerned, but will also save us money in the long run. That line was run at a loss; I do not say it will now be run at a profit, but the chances of its being operated at a profit have been very much enhanced by the broadening of the gauge. I hope the House will never again authorize the building of a narrow gauge lines. I am satisfied, after very close scrutiny of the position, that we have been quite justified in broadening the Saldanha Bay line, and that we will ultimately reap the benefit of it.

Will the Minister now add to the reply he gave regarding split rails and make a statement as to the position?

I can only repeat what I said on a previous occasion in regard to this matter. When the splitting of the rails occurred, we at once asked the Chief Mechanical Engineer and the Chief Civil Engineer to go closely into the whole matter. The whole of the electrification work is being carried out under the supervision of our consulting engineers, Messrs. Merz and McLellan, whose head office is in London. We submitted the reports to the consulting engineers for their comments, but up to the present we have not received their comments. It will not be fair to the consulting engineers to make a statement until we have heard from them. I hope at a later stage to give the House full information.

Does that affect the safety of traffic?

As soon as we find a split rail it is replaced. I am glad to say that the splitting has practically been eliminated.

I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to the railway houses in the high veld. The bad winters there make it necessary for the houses of the staff working there to be particularly good, and there are several things required at present in this connection.

Was the splitting of the rails due to defective rails or to the heavy tonnage hauled over the Natal line?

I want to point out to the Minister that the railway houses between Nelspruit and Sabiepoort were originally erected for natives and that several of the houses when white labourers were employed there were merely cleaned up. Cannot better provision be made?

The hon. member cannot go into the question for building houses, but may ask a question.

Then I should like to ask the Minister if he will make better provision for our white people.

In answer to the questions of hon. members, I want to point out that there are limits to capital expenditure, but within limits as much as possible will be done to meet their wishes. We must be very careful in spending money, and I fear that some members will have to be disappointed as regards the building of railway houses.

†I am afraid I cannot carry the matter of split rails any further, because I cannot say whether the splitting is due to defective rails, to the electrical units, or to the increased tonnage. The definite conclusions of the Administration on the matter will be given to the House at a later stage.

These split rails have occurred not only in Natal, but also in other parts of the Union.

To a very insignificant extent. It has really only occurred in Natal.

A split rail held up a train from Johannesburg for an hour a month ago.

It does sometimes happen.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 3, “Rolling Stock,” £1,017,068,

Is the Minister in a position now to make a statement in regard to the order placed for German engines the other day?

Does Item No. 33—import and erect 23 class 15 “C” engines refer to the 23 engines from America we had a discussion about this afternoon? How is it that the original estimate of £122,364 has been exceeded by £100,000? and whether any further additional expenditure is likely to be asked for in connection with the cost of these engines, because I find the cost works out roughly at £9,688 per engine. Has the Minister got the information now about the various amounts of tenders in regard to the Baldwins, British and German, when those tenders were accepted? I would like to know the original contract tender price and how it is these large amounts become additional to those prices, and does it include the cost of repairs at all, and how does the estimated cost become so much below the actual total.

If I explain the additional Estimates, it will clear up the position. It is not additional money we are asking on the original price. We are asking a greater cash provision during this financial year than we expected to require. At the time the estimates were drawn up, we did not expect to require so much money. The engines have come forward at a quicker rate than we expected. That is why we want additional money. The whole amount is £222,000, in which repairs are not included. The hon. member for Cape Town(Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked me to make a statement on the question of the Germanengines. I have placed a return on the Table of the House giving full information, and if it will suit the convenience of hon. members, I suggest that they reserve their criticism to a later stage when I bring in the covering Bill They can then go through the statement and deal with the matter. If that is satisfactory, I do not propose making any further statement.

I would like some information about item 36. I would like to know if these wagons will be available for use in the harbour areas. My reason for asking is that it has special interest for Algoa Bay, because we are in a different position to other ports. In other ports goods are off-loaded on to the wharf, and the equivalent of that at Algoa Bay is that they are off-loaded and put on to wagons and are brought to the distributing sheds. At all times the sea work overruns the shore work for want of equipment, so I would like to know if these wagons will be available for that purpose.

These four-wheel drop-sided wagons are for the coal traffic, and will not be suitable for the purpose which the hon. member describes. I agree that the equipment and trucks at Algoa Bay are not as suitable as they might be. We have a large number of old type trucks, and if we had the money, I would scrap many trucks and engines and purchase new ones. It is a question of finding the money. I agree that the position at Algoa Bay is not quite satisfactory. There is a bottleneck at the entrance to the harbour. I can make no promise at this stage, but I hope to be able to deal with the question and solve some of the difficulties at Algoa Bay. The traffic is large

What is the meaning of item 33, the provision of 109 suburban coaches? Does it mean these coaches are to be manufactured in South Africa? If it does mean that, I would like to ask the Minister what is the necessity for the following item, the importing direct of 39 first-class suburban coaches? I would also like to ask the Minister when he is going to put into practice his oft-repeated policy of building in South Africa what can be built in South Africa?

That bird has come home at last. Now my hon. friend is in the position, perhaps he can carry out the policy. On item 35, are those grain wagons of a similar pattern to those which have been on the line for sometime? I understand they are not satisfactory, and have a tendency to go off the line sometimes.

At very small cost we have been able to readjust those grain wagons, and they are now giving excellent service. We are not only using them for maize, but also for general goods. The new wagons are of the same pat-tern, but we have altered them by putting in two doors; so that it means that the handling of general goods will be facilitated. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) has asked about the 109 coaches. They are for use on the electrified line at Cape Town. They have been imported. He asked when the policy of the Government is going to be carried out with regard to the manufacture in South Africa all that can be manufactured? We are carrying out that policy at the present time. But we are not manufacturing everything we require in South Africa. I assure my hon. friend that if nothing abnormal occurs for the next two years, our workshops can go full steam ahead, and there need not be any short time in the work-shops. As regards the bigger question, I must ask my hon. friend to be patient and await the declaration of the Government’s policy in due time.

After three years’ time?

I would like again to call the Minister’s attention to item 35, 1,000 bogie grain wagons, and would like to ask him whether any attempt has been made to manufacture grain wagons in the loco shops in the Union?

Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell the committee whether the Administration has made up its mind as to where the new railway workshops are to be situated. He will remember that the departmental committee recommended either Salt River or Northern Natal, with a preference in favour of Natal. When the Minister was asked last year, he said that no decision had yet been come to, but that reasons other than economic reasons would probably govern the matter.

I would like to ask the Minister whether his workshops are equipped for the manufacture of these bogie wagons, etc.?

In reply to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) in regard to the manufacture of grain wagons, I am afraid we have not got to that stage yet. Of course, we put these wagons together here, but they cannot be manufactured here. In regard to the question of a site raised by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), I can only say that that, of course, hangs together with the whole question of policy in regard to this matter, on which I am afraid I cannot give any indication at this stage. In regard to the question of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), I may say that, while the workshops are equipped, I am afraid I cannot say that they are equipped in such a manner that we are turning out the work under the best and most economical conditions. In other words, we ought to improve our plant in our workshops very much. Much has been done during the past two years. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) stifled the workshops.

What nonsense! It is very convenient to throw the blame on your predecessor.

My hon. friend cut down expenditure. As I have said before, probably for good reasons he cut down the provision for workshops equipment. We are now doing our best to overhaul that. It is costing us a lot of money. While we have made considerable progress, we are not, I am afraid, nearly as well equipped as we ought to be in order to be able to compete with other countries.

In regard to item 35, I would like to stress the point with the Minister that there is one depot where a big railway workshop exists at which they are prepared to build these very grain wagons at a less price than the imported article. The hon. Minister stated his predecessor starved the workshops for money, but he, the present Minister, is starving them for work.

Of course, my hon. friend (Mr. Bates) will realize that the question of the manufacture of further articles in South Africa is a very big one, and that we cannot deal with it piecemeal at one shop. It must be dealt with as a whole.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 6, “Working Capital,” £25,000, put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Unforeseen Works,” £75,000, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Loan Funds to be reported without amendment.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from the Railway and Harbour Revenue Funds, and from Loan Funds, without amendment.

Report considered and adopted.

When this Bill was before the House on the second reading, I drew attention to the change made in section 3 (h), which gives power to the Surveyor-General, when required by the Minister, to do the same work as the Director of the Trigonometrical Survey under Clause 5 (a). I have made enquiries into the matter and I understand that the idea is that section 3 (h) will only be used in exceptional circumstances. I think it would clear the air if the Minister could make a statement as to the circumstances under which it is proposed to use the power under section 3 (h) and whether it will be used in such a way that there will not be dual control and overlapping.

The point is that the Director of the Trigonometrical Survey may be ill or he may resign. In the meantime until his successor is appointed or he recovers from his illness, somebody will have to look after his office. The Surveyor-General is the person to do that. The section says distinctly to conduct, when required by the Minister. I want to have power to give instructions to do that work. There will be no overlapping whatsoever. It is only a necessary provision in the case of the illness or absence of the Director of the Trigonometrical Survey.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

As regards Clause 13 (3) I should like to know why it is provided that neither the Government nor any of its officials can be held responsible for a wrong survey. If mistakes are made why cannot the Government or its officials be held responsible?

The hon. member must understand that a surveyor is not a Government official and, therefore, the Government cannot be held liable for the mistakes made by land surveyors.

If they are not Government officials what is the use of the Clause? Then surely it is superfluous.

The Surveyor-General approves of the diagrams.

The farmer would then have to pay if a mistake is made, and a new survey has to take place. Where is the farmer indemnified against his mistakes?

Hon. members will see that in another clause it is provided that the surveyor-general has power, when a mistake has been made, to order a surveyor to do a re-survey at his own expense.

There is another side to the matter. The public are entirely at the mercy of the Institute of Surveyors with regard to payment. A surveyor may not work at a lower tariff than the minimum fixed by his institute. I want to ask the Minister if an alteration cannot be made in that.

I agree with the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). The surveyor general is supposed to check the curveyor’s work and to approve of it, and then registration can take place. But if mistakes are subsequently discovered a new survey has to be done and the farmer will then have to pay again to have the work re-done. I think that is unreasonable.

An hon. member has spoken about surveyors’ fees. They have already been fixed and approved of by the Minister, and I do not intend to alter them. I am surprised at the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) speaking about mistakes in surveys. If a mistake is made by a surveyor then it is not the fault of the Government, and it cannot be expected that the Government should bear the expense, because the farms do not belong to the State. It would be an impossible position to be held responsible for mistakes. If the mistake is made in the office of the Surveyor-General then it is another matter, but the Surveyor-General cannot be held responsible for surveyors’ mistakes until the trigonometrical survey of the whole country is completed and the data collected as is provided in this Bill. The only responsibility which we can accept is that the Surveyor-General can instruct the surveyor to do his work over again, even if he had done it a year of two before. That is the only thing we can do.

Who then must pay?

The farmer has already paid in the first instance, and if the survey is wrong the land surveyor must do the work again without payment.

I should like to know why the taxpayers should pay for the Surveyor-General’s office, but when a mistake is made by a surveyor the office will not take the responsibility. Why then do we have a Surveyor-General and his office? If the position is as stated by the Minister, then I think that the Bill should be so amended to compel the Surveyor-General to make the surveyor perform the re-survey. The latter may, however, already be dead, removed from the roll or hopelessly insolvent. What will the position be then? The Minister ought to make provision for such cases in the event of a mistake.

I should like the farmers to be protected where necessary, and that the Surveyor-General, in case of mistakes, should be compelled to take steps. The cases referred to are exceptions, and it is unnecessary to waste the time of the House. The survey is entirely a matter between the owner and the surveyor.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

An amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

On Clause 19,

Clause 19 speaks of the “original beacons” on the ground. I should like to ask the Minister what is meant by “original beacons.”

The hon. member knows that in the Transvaal, e.g., beacons have been erected according to the old inspection report. These are now adopted as the correct beacons, and are, therefore, the original beacons. If they are wrong the diagrams are, of course, rectified.

What if there are no original beacons available?

Then the farm must, of course, be surveyed.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I should like the Minister to explain what is meant in the case of a diagram of a portion of a farm being made that the Surveyor-General need not pass a diagram unless the whole farm is surveyed. If there are no original beacons, and an original farm is divided into four parts, and later into further parts, then it will occasion tremendously great expense.

It cannot be helped. The clause only deals with unsurveyed ground which has never yet been surveyed. If it is not known whether a farm is 100 or 1,000 morgen in area the diagram cannot be passed. That goes without saying.

What then is meant by “original beacon”?

It may be that there are beacons, yet that no one knows what the area of the ground is. It is intended to make provision for such cases.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I should like provision to be made that when a new diagram is prepared notice shall be given to the neighbours of a man who is having his ground surveyed. There may be a dispute with regard to beacons, and the neighbours ought to know that their neighbour is having his ground surveyed and a diagram prepared.

Hon. members will see that the clause refers back to Clause 16, where it is provided that general notice must be given, etc.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

An amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

On Clause 24,

I move—

The intention is to meet representations made to me in this connection. If a piece of ground has originally been wrongly surveyed the documents with regard to the division of the ground will also be wrong. If a farmer then wanted to sell a piece of ground he would have to have his whole farm surveyed at great expense. Therefore provision is made in the clause that a farmer can sell pieces of his ground, and from time to time an amended title can be made until he comes to the last piece, which must then be surveyed.

I appreciate the Minister’s desire to have reliable records in his office, but it seems to me that after the department has issued title to land, and has exacted payment of the fees, it would not be fair to the owner to insist on his having the land resurveyed and to impose a further charge on him. It was not made clear in the discussion on Clause 13 whether an owner would have to make an additional payment for a mistake made by Government in issuing title.

The hon. member cannot expect the Government to pay for mistakes not made by its officers. The Surveyor-General can only state that surveys are correct when the trigonometrical survey of the whole of the Union is completed and the Surveyor-General has copies of the field books. Suppose a farm was incorrectly surveyed a hundred years ago, and the owner now wants to sell a portion of it. The clause, as originally drafted, imposed on him the duty of having the whole farm re-surveyed, and then to cut off the piece of land he desires to sell. Hon. members showed that would be a hardship, so I agreed that instead of doing that the owner should take out an amended title for the piece of land he wishes to sell. I am told that in the Cape the purchaser of land pays for the survey, but in the Transvaal the purchaser pays only the transfer duty, while the seller pays the other expenses. The Surveyor-General allows a certain margin of error in surveys, and does not insist on a new survey in every case, but only where a diagram is so incorrect that very serious difficulties arise does he insist of a re-survey. I do not see how the Government could be expected to pay for a re-survey or an amended title, which I think is clearly the duty of the owner of the land

Surely it is very unfair of the Government to insist upon the victim of their mistake being called upon to pay for such mistakes.

The Government never made a mistake.

If the Government issued a defective title then it is unfair to impose on the victim of that mistake the obligation of paying for it.

I am glad of the concession by the Minister, and it certainly removes a great objection. I, however, want to ask him when anyone wants to sell a piece of ground, and it is found during the survey that a mistake was made in the survey of the whole farm, whether it will be left to the Surveyor-General to furnish a diagram for the small piece of ground, and whether the seller will be able to say that he is satisfied with its only being a diagram for the small piece, so that there need not be a survey of the whole farm. Will it then rest with the farmer or will it be left to the whim of the Surveyor-General?

The amendment is very clear. I will read it, and then the hon. member will follow better. [Amendment read.]

If the farmer cannot get the consent of his neighbours must the survey still take place? Does it mean that he will then be compelled to have the farm surveyed?

Provision is made in the Bill how he is to get the consent.

His neighbour might easily refuse.

The hon. member will see that adequate provision is made in the Bill for getting the consent.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I move— That Clause 25 be deleted.

I propose this because the clause is not necessary after the amendment, which has just been made to the previous clause.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 32,

This is a technical Bill, and I approach it with considerable diffidence, but I question the wisdom of this radical alteration in the law. I do not think the House has appreciated the fact that we are altering a Transvaal law which has been in force for over fifty years. Since 1870, for fifty-seven years in the Transvaal an approved diagram has been an unimpeachable document. For over half a century in the Transvaal there has been a dearth of beacon actions. Now the Minister proposes reverting back to the Cape system, which makes the beacon the unimpeachable proof. I have been approached by Transvaal landowners to put this matter before the House. In the well-known Transvaal case, Murray v. Opperman, the judges held there was a good deal to be said for both sides, but the balance was in favour of supporting the diagram, which prevents more disputes, rather than revert back to the beacon system. Now, the Minister proposes to do away with that old Transvaal law, and to go back to the Cape system. The court in the case I quoted stated that cases of hardship would occur in either event, but certainly the Transvaal law served to prevent disputes, and the House should stop to consider whether it is wise to do away with the Transvaal system and come back to the Cape system. May I quote the judgment which practically lays down the law on the question—

Experience has proved the inviolability of the diagram as causing fewer disputes, and I put it to the House with diffidence, because my knowledge of the surveying profession is limited, but I question the wisdom of reverting back to the Cape system.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

I am aware that the decision in Murray v. Opperman that I was quoting has since been superseded, but that does not affect the point at issue. The point is whether in reverting back to the unimpeachability of beacons in preference to the unimpeachability of diagrams we are not reopening the door to disputes and litigation. I am not a protagonist or champion of beacons or of diagrams in this particular matter. I was asked by the Landowners’ Association of the Transvaal not to oppose this clause, but merely to put both sides of the question to the House in order that the House should know the exact position. We have to decide whether we are not re-opening the door to unnecessary litigation and to beacon disputes by practically upsetting what was, at any rate for over 50 years, considered to be the law in the Transvaal. I cannot carry the matter any further and I leave it in the hands of the House at that.

I entirely agree with the objection of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). It may lead to dissatisfaction if an owner, by the removal of beacons, might lose a part of his farm.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

The clause says: “a ‘verwijderd’ or ‘weggemaakte’ beacon.” What is the difference between these two words? In line 35 they are again used. “Tone away with,” of course covers “weggemaakte.” Usually we use the words “removing beacons.” The two words used mean the same thing. Further on the words “repaired or re erected” are used. From this it appears that in the first case the meaning is “to place elsewhere.”

The English text makes the meaning quite clear.

That has got “obliterated,” which means completely removed. “Verwyderen” means removed.

I do not object to the amendment of the hon. member.

Certain amendments agreed to in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Then I want to invite the attention of the Minister to subsection 3, which provides that within six weeks of the day upon which notice is handed over or posted a beacon must be reinstated or erected. In sub-section 2 it is, however, provided that a beacon must be elected by a surveyor. I think it will lead to difficulties because the time is too limited. Will an owner always have an opportunity of getting out a surveyor within six weeks? The Minister himself knows that in the Transvaal it takes time to get a surveyor. I should like to move—

I am prepared to accept the amendment

I should just like the Minister to explain what the sentence in Clause 33 means—

It may be that in my division land has long since been enclosed, and that there is a pole where the beacon ought to stand. If the Bill passes will the provisions of Clause 33 also apply to such a case? Will the farmer have the right to erect the beacon at the spot without sending for a surveyor? It seems to me he will have to call in a surveyor, although he could do the work himself.

The clause says—

In the Free State there are definite places where the beacons are neglected and where the farmer has put a post in fencing his farm.

In the Cape where the farmers go in a great deal for jackal-proof fencing, all the stone beacons have been taken away, and there are posts to which the wire has been attached. Must these people now get a surveyor to erect a beacon? In certain cases a beacon cannot be erected because the post is already on the spot and if the beacon is erected the jackals will climb over the wire.

The clause provides [clause read] I cannot give the assurance hon. members wish, but I think the clause will not apply to land which has already been surveyed.

We should like to have the assurance. I do not wish to detain the House, but if it be ascertained later that it does apply, shall we have an opportunity to make an amendment?

Yes.

I see according to Clause 35 every owner of ground must properly maintain a beacon or mark or corner beacon of the ground. If the corner beacon should be common to four owners which one will have to erect and maintain the beacon?

All together.

All four in partnership? I cannot see how sensible people can ask that all four should be responsible. Which one then must do it?

Read subclause 4.

Sub-clause 4 does not meet this case because all are held equally responsible for the cost of the beacon which has to be erected. Must all four now put up the beacon and maintain it. Then I should like the Minister to tell me whether the office of the Surveyor-General or the Minister can call upon all the farmers in the Union to put up all their present beacons in a certain fixed way or whether that will only be the case in future surveys? I should also like the Minister to say what materials are to be used, as I think it necessary to mention this in the Bill. Then I should also like to know what the charges of the surveyor are to be if the erection has to be under his supervision.

The hon. member will see that Clause 4 deals with this matter.

Who has to pay?

If there are four all of them jointly. They meet and arrange, e.g., for Piet to erect and they each bear their share of the cost. All four are responsible and they must meet to arrange matters.

And if anyone refuses to pay?

Then the Surveyor-General can take steps to recover the cost. In answer to the question as to whether all the beacons must be made according to a fixed pattern, I just want to say that only in the case of new beacons can it be laid down what is to be done. As regards the old beacons, they have merely to be repaired. As to the new beacons which have to be erected as directed, it depends on circumstances how they are to be erected. In the towns they will not be so large as, e.g., on the veld. The beacons will depend upon the available materials. At some spots stones will be put on each other and cemented together, at others iron standards will have to be used.

I just want to know whether the Minister or the Surveyor-General have the right of calling upon the country to erect all beacons in a certain way. If that is so, will it not be desirable to provide in the Bill how they should be made? Otherwise a very expensive way may be prescribed by proclamation. Before the clause is put, I hope the Minister will answer my question.

There is nothing in the Bill empowering the Minister or the Surveyor-General to say how the beacons are to be made. If an appeal is made, and the people so wish, they may do the work voluntarily.

Will all the beacons have to be pointed out by a surveyor, and who is to pay? Can the surveyor just charge what he likes?

The tariff is fixed by the Regulation Board, consisting of the four Surveyors-General, the director of the trigonometrical survey, and four surveyors from the provinces, is submitted to the Minister and laid on the Table. The tariffs are there laid down.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 43,

I move—

The provisions of the clause were too wide. The intention is that the Surveyor-General will only have the power in extreme cases to notify the Registrar and to prohibit the further registration of that piece of ground or a portion thereof until a new diagram has been approved. The original clause goes too far. There are, however, cases when such power is required. It has occurred that when a farm was to be surveyed it appeared that there was no ground left. It has also occurred that a piece of ground was stated to be 2,000 morgen, while it actually measured only 300 morgen. It can also lead to abuse where a man, who knows that ground measures 700 morgen while the diagram only shows 300 morgen through some mistake, goes to the owner and purchases it very cheaply. Therefore, the power is now only given in extreme cases.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 45,

In my opinion, this clause goes a little too far. Of course, it may be necessary in the course of their work for surveyors to go on another’s ground, but the clause says that the surveyor, or anyone with a note from the Surveyor-General, can enter any building or enclosed place on the understanding that he has merely to give the owner of the building notice. I think we should go a little further and say that when anyone has to enter a private building, he must have the owner’s consent, and must inform the owner in writing why it is necessary to enter such a building or enclosed place. If the owner refuses, it is another matter, but let such a person first ask for permission and give the reason. I move—

I do not think it necessary. It only happens in large towns such as Cape Town and Johannesburg. There a surveyor often has to get on to a roof or go into a yard, and therefore through a house. It will never occur on the countryside.

The Minister admits that private buildings will have to be entered. Why, then, cannot the reason be given?

The hon. member’s amendment is precisely what is contained in the proviso in the Bill, and I cannot accept it unless he proposes the deletion of sub-clause 1.

There is a distinction, viz., that the reason has to be given why it is necessary for private property to be entered upon.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 50,

I move—

Agreed to

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, the schedules and title, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

In his second reading speech, the Minister said he had omitted subsection 2 of old Clause 23, because the case that was intended to be met by that subsection had been met in the meantime by the Medical Council. But the Minister was in error. There are two brothers. The case of the one has been met, but not that of the other. They have been in South Africa a long time, and hold degrees recognized by the London Medical Council. In order to obtain registration, however, it was necessary for them to present themselves personally to the Council in London. One of the brothers went to England in 1922 and was registered, but the other brother could not afford to make the journey, and was not registered. Both of them are British subjects, and both cases are precisely on the same footing. Every safeguard is included in my amendment. There is no reason why these two brothers holding exactly the same degrees should be treated differently, and why the one who could not afford to visit England should not have his certificate recognized. After considering their case the committee put the amendment on the Paper, so the committee was quite sympathetic.

The facts are as stated by the hon. member I have carefully considered the amendment and I think it is a reasonable one. It does not lay down a new principle, and, therefore, it does not open the door to a large number of cases. It affects only one case in the Union and I think it would be an advantage if the person concerned were registered and brought under the supervision of the Medical Council I will therefore support the amendment.

Can the Minister state whether a medical officer, who is practising in India at the present moment, under a diploma granted by the examining authority there, will be able to practise under the provisions of this section? I am concerned with the case of a medical officer with long service in India who is at present assistant surgeon to the Viceroy, and who contemplates coming to live with relatives in South Africa. He has enquired whether it will be possible for him with that diploma to be permitted to practise in this country.

It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Medical Council to decide. All these applications will have to come before the Medical Council, and it is for them to judge whether the standard of the examination which they have passed in a country like India is on a level with the standard that we demand for our own students in South Africa. It is impossible for me to say. It is a matter for the Medical Council.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move—

I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, because there are a large number of people in the country who have practised with good results. There are some of our old people who are now called quacks and looked down upon with utter contempt, but it is most unfair. Even in England, for whose politicians we have the greatest respect, and which is a much older country than South Africa, they have never yet put through a Bill preventing people, who can cure others, from doing so. For about twelve years attempts have been made to pass this Bill, but nobody has yet dared to push it through in this form. If it is now pushed through, I want to assure the Minister that there is a very strong opposition to the Bill, where it limits patients to certificated doctors. I hope the Minister will see that the Bill hurts the feelings of many people in the country. The old people, such as, e.g., Aunt Ralie Botha, Mrs. Lambrechts, and various other people, attract hundreds and thousands of patients. Hon. members must not think that I am an enemy of the doctors, because I am one of their greatest friends. I have my own house doctor, and he lives opposite me, and is a dear good fellow.

Have you no faith in him then?

I just believe him when I want to, but we get on very well together. The Minister can take it that doctors are just the same as other people. Some are first class, and others are not worth taking notice of. Now I ask whether it is right to compel persons to go to certificated doctors? Private persons in the past have discovered medicines which are excellent, and which the doctors have not yet been able to secure. Would it be right to draw a fence round the doctors, and to limit persons to consulting only them? We are against a monopoly in every form, e.g., a meat monopoly, but how much more ought we not to be against the monopoly of doctors, who have to do with human flesh? I am pleading for the public who believe in the old people who in the past were the refuge in cases of cancer and other diseases. I can mention many cases and establish them. If I fail, then I am prepared to pay £100 to a hospital. Recently there was a lady in Middelburg, a poor woman without a husband, who had been to 19 doctors, and each of the doctors said that it was only a matter of time. The girl was seriously ill and fainted frequently, and one of the so-called quacks took charge of her and gave her a bottle of medicine. The simple consequence was that when I left, the girl was visiting my son on his farm, and could already walk about, and this notwithstanding the wisdom of the 19 doctors around whom a ring fence is now to be drawn. The clause will cause endless loss. Who discovered all the patent medicines which are to-day used in the country? Half of them were discovered by private people, the quacks who are now derided. When one talks about the injurious consequence of this clause in the lobbies they say it is a serious matter, but it does not seem to have much effect in the House. I want to ask the House to grant my request so that a Bill shall not be pushed through which they have not even dared to pass in England. There are hon. members opposite who want the Minister to put his foot down, but I ask them to support me.

Talk to the Minister, he is the man.

Now I ask quite seriously that the clause should not be passed, but that my amendment should be adopted, so that individuals shall have the liberty, if they do not wish to go to doctors, to go to the despised quacks.

You can safely go, you will not be fined.

If the quack may not be paid, he will not continue his work of healing.

Just give him a gift if he cures you.

The neighbour of the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) had cancer, but to-day he is quite well as the result of treatment by a quack.

What prevents anyone going to-day?

The Bill prohibits the quack from demanding payment. He may not even receive anything, or the doctor will quickly make trouble. Laughter is going on now about a very serious matter. If it is so simple a matter, why was the Bill not passed before? Why should this Government bear the unpopularity of it? The passage of the Bill will not create a satisfactory condition of things. If the doctors draw such a ring fence around themselves, then the people will hereafter look upon them with more disfavour, and not believe in them. We must not think that they are keen on the Bill out of patriotism. I think it is more to make money than for any other reason. If one notices who go to study medicine, then you can see that it is not for love of the people. It is because it is a paying profession, and the only one which is a monopoly. They can ask what they like, keep alive or kill as they like, and if an enquiry is asked for, then another doctor from within the fence is called in to say whether a mistake has been made. One can expect very little from an enquiry with the so-called etiquette that exists. If one has killed a man, will the three or four doctors who are called give away their colleague? No, they will say that the patient’s heart was too weak, and that it stopped beating. As if they could see that after a man was already dead.

The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) has pleaded so strongly that if I were not firmly convinced of the justice of the principle of the Bill I should almost be persuaded by his plea. If we, however, were to pass the amendment of the hon. member we should be accepting something which is directly opposed to the basic principle of the Bill and then we may as well drop it. The hon. member desires that any person whether he has had training or not, if he can prove that in his own way he has treated people and done them good, should have the right to he registered. These persons cannot be tested by an examination because the hon. member admits that they have had no scientific education. The only test whether these people can be let loose on the public to treat any kind of disease by their methods and to diagnose any disease like an ordinary doctor, is that they must be able to prove that the people whom they have treated have received benefit, and that for five years they have made their living in this way. How is such a test to be applied? It would require a regular machinery of State to call up all the persons who have been treated as witnesses about their treatment, and on the other hand also those who have not received benefit from treatment of the so-called quack. The Board of Enquiry would then have to decide whether such a person could be registered. The amendment is quite unpractical and conflicts with the principles of the Bill.

I am very sorry that the Minister will not meet us on the point. Before medical men came to South Africa there were herb practitioners amongst the coloured people. We know there are many beneficial bushes and in South Africa the doctors are now commencing to examine the bushes to find out what diseases they are good for. The old people in the old days knew this and in all countries there are herb practitioners who use definite herbs for definite complaints. These contain no poison but a doctor always prescribes poison. Many complaints are cured by these people, such as cancer, e.g. We know that Mrs. Landsberg has cured more people of cancer than any doctor has in South Africa. The Minister says that a new State machinery is necessary. Is he afraid that the witnesses will malign the doctors? We believe in the healing power of herbs. So long as we have not arrived at the point that the State orders a doctor to visit and treat every sick person, we have no right to give a monopoly to the doctors. Why should I not be allowed to go to someone if I know that I shall receive benefit?

Amendment put and negatived.

I move—

The doctors therefore have first to state that a person is incurable. I only ask that a person shall then have the right to go to a so-called quack for relief or even to find a cure. I think this is a very reasonable proposal and I do not wish to say any more about it.

Amendment put; upon which the House divided:

Ayes—22.

Basson, P. N.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Fordham, A. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—51.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Jager, A. L.

Duncan, F.

Fick, M. L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Pienaar, B. J.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I move—

I am doing this on the same principle as in the Law Society Bill. Druggists hold that a period of three years is too short in which to serve articles.

I would like the Minister to accept this amendment. It is an important alteration and it really brings the Bill into line with existing conditions. After all three years is a very short period and although the Bill makes provision for the setting up of schools of pharmacy I understand that the associated societies of South Africa have gone into this matter very carefully and feel that four years will come out much better. The ultimate benefits are very great. It would not make any serious difficulty as far as the boys are concerned.

I am sorry that I am unable to accept this amendment, and I think if it is accepted it will make the door too narrow for apprentices to enter the profession. As the laws exist to-day apprentices must be apprenticed in three of the provinces for a period of four years, but in the O.F.S. it is only three years. When the present Bill was drawn up the four Pharmacy Boards in the Union were consulted, and all four agreed that the period should, not be four, but three years. It is also three years in England. If we make the door too narrow for apprentices to enter, it will certainly restrict competition, and that is certainly not in the public interest.

We are having a very strange and a new theory this evening as to the public interest—the less the experience of men who handle poisonous drugs the better for the public! The Minister is prepared to follow the English precedent in this case, but I have often heard him say that we should decide things for ourselves. As a rule, I am told they can get through their examinations very easily in their seventeenth year. They are articled and have to serve three years, but can be admitted only if they are 21. What harm is done in making them serve four years? Under the circumstances, I think the Minister ought to reconsider his decision and see whether he could not give the profession the benefit of having such properly qualified members as they so earnestly desire.

It is quite true that the Pharmacy Board agreed to three years, in conjunction with certain other controls. Nevertheless there is a great deal of opinion in favour of four years. There is very little damage to the boys, and it will increase their training.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move—

The reason for my amendment is because most of the people have to pay to-day to go to an apothecary and dentist. I want the poor man who has no money to also be able to come in and not that the man who can pay should have the preference.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

My attention has been drawn to the want of provision in the Bill for male nurses. In all our large institutions we have male nurses. Most of those, except at the mental institutions, have not had any opportunity of obtaining any training. What provision has been made for male nurses at places like the Old Somerset Hospital? Opportunities should be given them to obtain training.

The Bill draws no distinction between male and female nurses. On the contrary it provides for the training and supervision of male nurses serving, for instance, in mental hospitals.

But not in chronic sick hospitals.

I should like to impress upon the Minister that the point mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is of the greatest importance. I should be glad if in the Dutch text provision is made for a male nurse so that male persons shall also fall there under.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

Will the Minister accept an amendment whereby any person who is refused registration by the Medical Council has an opportunity to appeal to a board consisting, say, of the magistrate of the district in which the applicant resides, the chairman of the medical board and a representative of the Minister? This Board to be the final court of appeal. There being a bitter feeling by a large number of the medical profession, against gentlemen who are gifted in applying massage.

Provision is made in the Bill to deal with the point raised by the hon. member. If registration is denied to a person he can appeal to the Supreme Court.

An appeal to the Supreme Court involves the expenditure of a great deal of money. Generally appeals to the Supreme Court end in disaster to the appellant unless he has a large banking account.

Clause put and agreed to.

New Clause 32,

I move—

follow Clause 31:

1. 32.
   1. (1) The council shall establish and keep a register or registers in which shall be entered particulars of dental mechanicians who have been trained and have passed examinations in dental mechanics, shall hold examinations for dental mechanicians and may make and from time to time amend or repeal rules prescribing the diplomas or certificates which may be accepted for registration in lieu of the passing of any examination prescribed by the council and the conditions of acceptance.
   2. (2) The council may for good and sufficient reason cancel any certificate issued to, or erase from the register the name of, any persons registered under this section.

I do not see what possible objection can be taken to the amendment, even by those who do not share my views regarding dental mechanicians. My amendment takes dental mechanicians out of Clause 32 and puts them in a separate clause by themselves. I take over all the safeguards contained in the Minister’s clause, simply altering the word “may” to “shall.” The only difference between my amendment and the Minister’s clause is that the Medical Council will be compelled to open this register.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

An examination has, therefore, to be approved of by the Minister.

Might I suggest the hon. member moves these words “approved of by the Minister” after the word “examinations” in the fourth line of my amendment, on page 109 of the Votes and Proceedings.

Let me say in general we must be very careful in regard to these dental clauses. Apparently the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is coming to this House as the mouthpiece of the dental mechanics, but I doubt whether the hon. gentleman has the right to do it. I have a telegram from the Operative Dental Mechanics of the Transvaal, an organized body consisting of those people for whom the hon. member thinks he is spokesman—

No, it is not so.

This is what they wire—

Those are the people you are giving registration to.

That is an organized body of dental mechanics in the Transvaal and they are satisfied with the Bill as it stands. My objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street is that it is unnecessary if it means what it purports to mean. Everything that is in that new clause which he moves is provided for in 32—

We may safely leave the matter of registration of dental mechanics to the council. It is unnecessary to lay an obligation on them. If the hon. member merely introduces this clause at this stage and takes the dental mechanics out of the other clause and makes it here under a separate clause, as a clause by itself, then I think he has in his mind to prepare in that way the other amendments in connection with the dental clauses he has in his mind.

What is wrong with that?

If the one is connected with the other then I am against the one as much as against the other. It is redundant and unnecessary and I look upon it as a preparation of what is to follow from the hon. member for Hanover Street. We must be very careful with regard to any alteration or making more lax these provisions in connection with dentists or dental mechanics. As I pointed out on the second reading of this measure the position of the dentists in the country to-day is in a certain sense a sad one. We have a school of dentistry established in this country and we are paying money out of State funds for the school for dentistry and on the other hand the position in the country is such that South Africans practising dentistry are so little protected that quite a number have left South Africa to practise overseas because they cannot make a living in South Africa. In one of the provinces the position is such that some of the registered dentists are surrendering or are seriously thinking of surrendering their registration certificates, because they think that if they practise as unregistered persons and they are free to advertise they can compete much better with other qualified men than they can to-day. Therefore, there is a premium set to-day under existing circumstances on the unqualified and unregistered man, and I want certainly to improve the position. For that reason I think that we ought to leave the provisions of the Bill in connection with dentists unaltered.

I would like to know what the Minister means by saying that I am the mouthpiece of the dental mechanicians. He said it in rather an offensive way. I am the mouthpiece of every man in this country who has a just grievance to lay at the doors of Parliament. I want to know what the Minister means by that remark, because as a member of Parliament I resent very much the tone in which he spoke. If he cannot support his case with better arguments than he has done, I think it would be better if he did not speak at all when these amendments are being considered. He told the House that I spoke on behalf of certain persons who had repudiated me. That is absolutely incorrect. There are twenty gentlemen in Johannesburg who have been working under dentists and who, under this Bill, are given permission to practise as dentists. That is the society whose letter he read out. Does the Minister know that telegram or letter that he read applies to twenty gentlemen who are being taken over under this Bill, men who have been practising under supervision, although they are not dentists, and who are now given the right to become dentists? I am not speaking on their behalf. They are very pleased with this position. They are the only people in Johannesburg who are doing dental mechanicians’ work who are pleased with this Bill. If the dental mechanicians, for whom I am pleading, were also made dentists under the Bill they also would be very pleased. I would draw the attention of the House to the petition presented only a few days ago by myself on behalf of certain organized dental mechanicians in Johannesburg. They are not the twenty gentlemen for whom the Minister has been speaking, but they are just as responsible a body of men, and they are entitled to be heard by this House. I have a telegram stating that the letter read by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) from the organized dental mechanics expressed the opinion of twenty men under supervision. Experienced mechanics of nine years had been debarred from this society because of having no supervision. They also stated that mechanics of ten years’ experience were getting £15 per month. Dental mechanics were obliged to seek their own livelihood by catering for the poor public owing to dentists not paying a living wage. I wired to them to send a deputation down. A deputation came down, and a petition has been presented to this House by the Dental Mechanics’ Association, for whom I am speaking. I can give the Minister another organized body for whom I am speaking, and that is the Cape Society of Dental Mechanicians. They are by no means pleased with the position under this Bill. I have also received a telegram from Vrededorp expressing opposition to the dental provisions of the Bill. I can assure the Minister that a large number of dentists are still to be obtained in South Africa; there is no dearth of them, and a large number are being trained now. If some are leaving, the public need not be alarmed.

What is the necessity for the mechanicians then?

The necessity is to do justice to those who are practising at the time you bring in your legislation., It is done in every country in the world. I am not asking these people to be made dentists at all When the Minister objects to the poor mechanical man, who is merely asking permission to make teeth and fit them, then I say he ought to be better prepared with his information than he was. Apart from the few professional gentlemen who are brought in as dentists under this Bill, all the dental mechanicians in the Union are seeking for protection, and I submit they are perfectly entitled to it at the hands of the Minister. There is nothing unreasonable in what they are asking. The man who does the mechanical work should be allowed to get the fruits of his labour. You allow him to do work for a dentist, but you say he must receive whatever the dentist chooses to pay, and he must only work if the dentist chooses to employ him. If no dentist wants him, he cannot practise his calling at all. That is the effect of the Bill, and I say it is not fair at all, and that is why I ask these men should be put on a separate register to be examined. The Council at present is hostile to the idea of dental mechanicians doing work direct for the public. If you leave it for them to register these men if they think fit—suppose they do not think fit? Why not say the Council shall establish it? They may decide to have nothing whatever to do with it, and then this section would remain a mere dead letter upon the Statute-book. The only difference is that I make it compulsory. I hope the Minister will be fair to those who are trying to get justice done for the poorer sections of the people, and are entitled to better treatment from the Minister than the remarks he made upon a perfectly reasonable request.

I should like to tell the Minister that I agree that dentists should be protected, but I think that they are being very well protected in the Bill. I also have a letter from a dental mechanic also asking for protection. If possible I want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). I can assure him that if it is not passed a lot of dental mechanics in Pretoria and in South Africa will get into such difficulties that they will hardly be able to make a living. When a man has passed the examination as dental mechanic, in Germany, England or Holland, and is competent at his work, he ought to be entitled to practise, and therefore it is necessary to protect him. The Minister knows how in Holland—in Utrecht— we used to call a dentist by the name of “gold mine.” It is dentists who make such tremendous fortunes. Now the dental mechanics know their work and have possibly passed the examination and we want to have them registered to practise. The Minister must understand that we do not wish to open the door for everybody to practise as a dental mechanic, but merely the man who has passed the examination. There are dentists who make thousands of pounds per annum and a fortune in the country. I do not grudge it them and I am not opposed to their being protected, but they are being sufficiently protected in the Bill. The dental mechanic is the support of the poor man who cannot afford to go to a dentist. He goes to a dental mechanic who does the practical work cheaply and just as well as the dentist. We merely want that only persons who have passed an examination approved by the Minister shall have the right to practise as dental mechanics. Surely the dental mechanics are also young Afrikanders who have passed their examinations and whose future is here.

I feel that I must still say a few words in favour of the amendments of the hon. members for Pretoria (South) (Dr. Van Broekhuizen) and Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I also have received telegrams from dental mechanics who have for years been doing the work in which they ask to be protected. It has already been said that the Bill gives good and adequate protection to the dentists, and why should that not be given to persons who have already been doing the work for years? When we pass Bills there are always exceptions. We cannot simply put the dental mechanics out of their job and take the bread out of their mouths. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment and meet the dental mechanics. There are individuals with large families among them and, as has already been said, they do much good work to the poor people who cannot afford to go to dentists. The mechanics do their work very cheaply, and in this way assist the poor. We merely ask that the persons who are to-day practising and are competent shall be protected.

I accept that part of the amendment.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Van Broekhuizen put and negatived.

On a point of explanation, has the Minister accepted the deletion of the word “may” and the insertion of the word “shall”?

It is the Dental Bill we are on.

I understand that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has moved a new clause to follow clause 31 (thirty-one) in the Dental Bill, not the marriage “shall.”

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) has moved a new clause in the amended form.

You are still a little rattled by Liesbeek.

And by Ermelo.

New clause by Mr. Alexander put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—25.

Basson, P. N.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Terblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—44.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, D. F.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Smartt, A. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Pienaar, B. J.

Proposed new clause accordingly negatived.

On Clause 34,

I move:

Let me tell the Minister that in talking about me being a mouthpiece I have lots of telegrams and letters on this question of drugless healing from all over the Union, some from people he may know. Incidentally, it is most unfair to the practitioner in Cape Town who is in possession of the new machine, the Neurocalometer, because he asked the Minister’s permission to show him the machine and the Minister refused to see him, yet he said it was a mystery and that he knew nothing about it. Well that was his own fault, because the man offered to show it to him. Faulty information was given to him because he was mixing it up with a machine known as Abrams Electronic Vibrator. The Neurocalometer is patented in America, England and six European countries. Incidentally what he said himself is wrong, because he said it was a mystery. How could it be a mystery if it was exposed publicly? He must have been mixing it up with the other machine. The next time a man wants to come and describe it to him I hope he will have the fairness to see it and not turn him away. This man, Mr. Blackburn, the president of the South African Chiropractors’ Association, is willing to demonstrate the machine to any member of the House. There is no mystery about it. It is a valuable instrument, each one costing £500. It certainly is not deserving of the ridicule that the Minister has poured upon it. The Minister if he closes his eyes to the fact that there are thousands of people all over the country, high and low, people who have been given up as incurable by a medical man, and who have been benefited by chiropractors and that there is a deep public feeling that these people should not be deprived of their livelihood, then he is not in touch with the outside public. I have a telegram from a gentleman who is well-known to members of this House, General Kritzinger of Cradock, in which he says—

If I were to read to the House the number of messages and letters I have got from members of the public imploring me to see that these people are protected because of the benefits they have obtained from their treatment, it would take up too much of the time of the House. I feel that I am applying for a measure of absolute justice. These people have given evidence before the committee. One of the chiropractors appeared before the committee and illustrated chiropractics by means of a skeleton.

It was not very convincing.

The hon. member was not convinced, but he will admit that it was only by his casting vote that the amendment was lost in that committee. We cannot convince everybody, but we can always convince reasonable men. What am I asking for in the amendment? I submit nothing more reasonable could be put before this committee. In the first place, I make it clear that nothing appertaining to medical practice prohibitions should apply to any particular form of drugless healing. What are the conditions under which I claim that these people should be allowed to practise? First of all, if the healer proves to the satisfaction of a board prescribed by regulation that he is qualified to practise a particular form of healing. Every other branch of science that the doctor studies these people study. They must be approved by a board prescribed by regulation. I say a board, because it would be unfair to submit these people to the ordinary Medical Council. There must be a special and independent board to deal with their cases. Then I have provided that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the board is entitled to go to the court exactly as other persons can go under section 18. It is a perfectly fair and perfectly reasonable amendment. It does not open the flood-gates. It does not admit a number of unqualified men. It simply says there are a number of people who go in for a different method of healing than medicine. Let them practise that particular form. I do not ask that they should be put on the register as doctors, or allowed to describe themselves as doctors. If a man is an osteopath, he would be allowed to practise as an osteopath; nothing else. There will be no confusion whatever between him and the doctor. I cannot conceive of a more reasonable amendment. It does not encroach upon the doctor; it simply provides protection for people who, in the interests of the public, are making a living to-day. Why? Because the experience of the public has shown that they have cured in many cases that have been given up by the doctors. I hope the Minister is not going to be as hostile to this amendment as he has been to the others I have moved. He will find that throughout the country a large number of people are interested in seeing that justice is done to this class of person.

It is alleged that a great section of the public is in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) or is is at any rate favourably disposed towards the class of persons he wishes to protect. In this connection I just want to call to mind the two men in the Transvaal of whom the Pretoria Indian was one who also enjoyed public support and esteem for a long time although it later appeared that they did not deserve it at all. The argument that because some people enjoy the support of the public and that they should therefore be protected is not sound. The amendment differentiates in equality between that class of people and doctors. I already mentioned at the second reading that a person who treats an invalid should in the first place possess the competency and the qualification to make a diagnosis. It takes years of study and in this country at least six years. Can the hon. gentleman say that one of the most enlightened of the group for whom he is pleading has even approximately six years’ study behind his back? We attach very great importance to the study of bacteriology and how then can we plead that the man who knows nothing of it shall have the same rank as a doctor who has years of study behind him? The Minister has fortunately clearly pointed out in his reply the distinction between the persons supported by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) and medical men. The argument is used that doctors only use medicine in treatment. That does not apply any longer in our days. Those who treat disease possess scientific methods and various methods are used for various diseases. Naturopathy is also used by doctors and not only by the friends of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street). Psychology also plays a great part with doctors, although I do not doubt that it is a still greater factor with the friends of the hon. member. Unfortunately his amendment is very wide. He says that he does not wish to put the doctors on the same footing, but the immediate effect of passing this amendment will be such equality, and the result will be the lowering of the standard of the medical practitioner. There will no longer be a motive for the medical man to be better than the other class of practitioners. Then we come to the danger to the public health. I have here an advertisement which appeared in the big daily papers from one of the most enlightened naturopaths. I do not know what training that man has had, but the advertisement asks people to fill in a consultation form and 25 diseases are given, and they are followed by “etc.,” People are asked to cut out the coupon and to send it in by post after filling it in, and then they will receive a book giving the treatment for the 25 diseases, etc. Included herein, e.g., are diseases of the eye, and all who have the least knowledge of the human body know that the eye is not a thing with which liberties can be taken. The most enlightened of the naturopaths of whom the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) has thought comes out with a statement that he will send a book to cure diseases of the eye. Really we cannot understand how hon. members want to convince us that people who have had no proper training whatsoever regarding the human body should be put on the same basis as the trained doctor who has studied for years.

On the motion of the Minister of Public Health it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.