I move—

I move as an amendment—

If I did not protest against the motion I should be failing in my duty towards my constituents and myself. We have heard much in the papers in recent times about the desecration of the Sabbath, and here we are actually asked to put in the thin edge of the wedge. I do not want to take it upon myself to-day to say that smoking, writing and reading in this House is actually desecration of Sunday, but I allege that it is the thin edge of the wedge. We, as leaders of the people, should set an example, and I protest against the example of keeping the House open on Sunday, not only because in that way we are setting a bad example to the old people, but particularly on account of the young generation who so easily will go further and use Sunday for purposes for which it was not established. My great objection is that our church and our people are opposed to it. At all my meetings I was instructed to prevent, as far as I could, the House being kept open on Sunday. Last year a similar proposal was strongly opposed by the churches. My second serious objection is that we are going further to burden the attendants of the House, who are already overworked dining the session, and take away their opportunity of going to church on Sunday. Now it will be said that other attendants will be appointed, but we cannot in all cases appoint others. Take the head, the caretaker of the building. He is responsible, and will have to be at his post on Sundays from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. That is not right, and it is unreasonable of the House to want to deprive the people of their Sunday rest and to prevent them going to church. Another objection I have is that I feel this House will be acting unfairly towards the public in spending the public money for the convenience of the few members (there will not be more than 12 or 13), and I understand that it will cost at least £150 a year. I hope the House will vote in favour of my amendment. The large majority of the people are against the report as rendered.

This question has been before the consideration of members for quite a long time. I cannot understand any objection to this report, seeing that the other end of this building for years has been open on Sundays, holidays and in the evenings, without any evil effect as far as I can see. Our holy men are very good in their ideas, but their fault is that they wish to impose their views on others. They forget also the scriptural text that “the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” I put forward the plea not for members who live here and have their own comfortable homes, but for those who have to live in boarding-houses and uncomfortable hotels, and under conditions sometimes very unpleasant. The end of the week is the only time when they can catch up to their arrear correspondence; and I ask how any man living in boarding-houses or hotels, even the larger hotels, can do justice to correspondents. Surely we can have what members of the Senate have long enjoyed. That is all we ask. We ask the extraordinarily good men, who are not compelled to use the proposed facilities to stand aside and let those use who wish do so. In regard to the last part of the report—

I plead once more for the attendants in the House who, in many cases, are only part-time attendants. It is an intermittent occupation; many of them come for the session only, and have to eke out a living in some other way during the interval. This House can afford to be liberal to its attendants; Parliament has been liberal to itself, some think extremely liberal.

In what way?

Your monthly cheque shows that.

The Pact passed the increase.

Yes, but I have not heard of any members of the Opposition returning their added fees, and I ask these gentlemen now to show consideration for the attendants. Many of them have a struggle to bring up their families in respectability and comfort. I hope the Internal Arrangements Committee will deal in a most liberal spirit in regard to this matter, and that we shall hear no more from those whose idea is to coerce even the majority.

I am really sorry that this proposal has been put before the House by the Internal Arrangements Committee, and I should very much have liked to see the Prime Minister explaining what the necessity is for opening this House on Sunday. It has always been a delicate matter for me to speak about religious principles. This will be the first time that the Houses of Parliament will be opened on Sundays. I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) with regard to the attendants. It is an unnecessary thing and a wrong principle. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has said that the House ought to be very liberal. The House already is very liberal and during the week members have so many privileges in the House that they can take a rest on Sundays. I hope the House will think very seriously about the matter because we cannot lightly allow the motion to pass. The people demand from the Government that Sundays shall be honoured as far as possible. Though it is sometimes necessary to do a thing on Sundays, in my opinion the day is too much dishonoured. I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours if it is not possible to reduce the number of the expresses. It hurts one to see in the list of passengers the members of this House who start on Sundays to come and attend the session. I am glad that the hon. member for Ficksburg has proposed his amendment, and I hope it will be supported. I trust the House will not permit a departure from our principles. Do we not sufficiently see how the country is being tried by plagues and punishments? Hon. members will possibly say that I am preaching, but I think the Supreme Being would rather that we turn back than went too far. We must oppose the motion.

Will the House then be sitting on Sundays if the building is kept open?

The hon. member knows how the people of South Africa are always told that the old Government was irreligious because the name of the Supreme Being was not mentioned in the Constitution. I do not wish to mention party matters but I want hon. members to feel the matter as strongly as possible. I can quite easily understand that hon. members, like the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), and hon. members of the Labour party, who are a part of the Government and hold their meetings and pass resolutions on Sundays, are in favour of the motion. I, however, ask every hon. member whether there are not sufficient conveniences in Cape Town, such as good hotels and hoarding-houses where they can do their writing at home. It is unnecessary to depart from the principles of the people. It is surprising to me that the Prime Minister makes the proposal. I am opposed to it and I hope hon. members will support the amendment so that we can show the people who want to violate the principles of the people that they are not going to do so.

I think that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) is a little hard on the Prime Minister. The report came from a Select Committee and a member of the Cabinet must propose its adoption. That is why the Prime Minister did so. The matter which is now being discussed is not new, but has often been discussed here. My first objection to the motion is that the officials of the House need one day’s rest in the week. The longer the session lasts the more the officials need the rest. I do not wish to preach a sermon to-day as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said, but if there is one good institution that the people of South Africa should hold in honour then it is rest on the Sabbath day. I think that in adopting the motion we would encroach upon the rest to which the officials of Parliament are entitled. In the second place we should hurt the feelings of the people. There is no need to regard the motion as a serious encroachment but possibly outside Parliament a greater significance will be given to it than the opening of a part of the Parliamentary rooms on Sunday, and the meaning may possibly be given to it that we are violating the feelings of the people.

What about the Senate?

The Senate is responsible for its own acts. It is entirely apart and regulates its own internal affairs. We sit here as the direct representatives of the people and we must adopt our own standpoint. I therefore hope that the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) will be accepted.

At the risk of being numbered amongst the cranks of the House, I would like to oppose this motion. This House should be in favour of the limitation of the hours of the attendants instead of an increase in their hours. Some of them have to work too long, and they have to leave this House at 11 o’clock at night and be back early next morning. I am told by one of my friends that it will mean an additional staff if this motion is agreed to. If this motion is agreed to, I do not think any new attendants will be obtained. The only compensation the attendants have at present is that they are off early on Tuesday and Friday nights. If the motion is carried, what becomes of the eight hours’ day and the unbroken rest at the week-end? I do urge every member not to vote for this resolution— to serve the convenience of half a dozen men, to put extra burdens on the attendants. There are many places to which hon. members can go for a week-end where they can deal with their correspondence instead of having to come to this House. If the increased expenditure were to go towards the wages and salaries of the attendants it would be doing far more good, for they are grossly underpaid. I hope the House will vote against this, and the committee can then reconsider it and go into the question of the additional expenditure involved and whether it means overtime to the attendants.

I should not have spoken about the matter at all to-day, but I feel obliged to say something after a few speeches which have been made here, otherwise it might go out to the world that this House is the most sinful gathering of people who come together. I have had the privilege of being a member of the Senate. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that the House of Assembly had nothing to do with the Senate, but the latter is one of the Houses of Parliament, even if it has the right to make its own bye-laws. The most happy Sunday which I have spent in this town was in the Senate lounge where I could rest from the rush of the town and where I had a place to go to without going to Muizenberg for a change. I went and sat there, read books and thought about my God just as well as in church. Hon. members must not try to create the view that members of Parliament are a body of godless men. Is the building then to be open for a sitting? Is not the impression given that we want to meet here on Sundays to do business? So much emphasis is to-day laid on the attendants, but I have been to the hotel where the hon. member for Ficksburg lives. What did he do? He used some of the servants to wait on me. Did he then think about their souls? I ask whether he thinks of his own servants’ souls when he is home at Ficksburg. Is it not merely the method of life? Provision is made in the motion for the attendant. Who says that those who work here will be used regularly on Sundays? Many of us who live in hotels and boarding houses have only one room. We haven’t all got so much money as the hon. member for Ficksburg to take extra rooms. My home here is in Parliament House and I only go to my boarding house to eat and sleep there. At other times this building is my home. It would be better if members of the Assembly came here on Sundays. Hon. members are bringing the public under a wrong impression and the matter ought not only to be put from one point of view. I think it is wrong that the impression is created that we are breaking the Sabbath. Let the building be open on Sundays and if members come here there will be less desecration of the Sabbath than hitherto. I hope that hon. members will think over the matter and will not listen to annoying remarks which want to make out that we are all irreligious people. I did not intend to speak on this subject but I could not allow certain observations to pass unanswered.

I would very much like to see the recommendation the Committee accepted, not, however, because I wish to make use of the increased facilities myself, for I like to get away from the precincts of the House whenever I can. That, nevertheless, is no excuse for taking up a dog-in-the-manger-like attitude, and for saying that members who wish to come here at times when the House is not sitting should be debarred from doing so. As far as the fundamentalists are concerned that argument may be left aside entirely. I am, however, placed in a little difficulty between the arguments of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), who raised a very good point. He said that the extra money should not be expended in giving these additional facilities, but in increasing the attendants’ wages. I am at one with him on that point, but if we vote against the proposal will the money be given to the attendants? I have been in the House for six years, and every session we have endeavoured to increase the attendants’ emoluments. Every party has discussed the matter in caucus, but there is some hypocrisy about all parties in this matter. If we turn this recommendation down the attendants will not receive additional pay, and the same old hypocrisy will continue. It is a standing disgrace that the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, the assembly of the elite of the Union, should have lower paid attendants than in any third-rate club in South Africa. Their scale of wages is totally inadequate.

I do think hon. members are going a little too far in their remarks about the salaries of the attendants.

The point has been raised, and it weighs with me and my vote. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has stated that the right thing to do would be to give the attendants the money that would be saved as a result of not giving these additional facilities.

The hon. member must refrain from casting a reflection on the House.

If I have cast any reflections, I will withdraw them. I want to try to educate the House into doing the proper thing. Probably many hon. members do not realize that this House does not pay its attendants the same wages as a third-class club does. I am going to support the recommendation of the Internal Arrangements Committee, but I hope the committee will take into consideration reports that will be presented to them later on, showing how far the facilities are used. If the new facilities are not availed of to any extent, I hope the matter will be brought up again, and that the additional facilities will be taken away. I hope the other point will also be considered by all parties, so that we can get away from this hypocrisy.

I did not intend to speak on this subject either, but the speech of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) has obliged me to do so. I do not know what the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) said which so excited him, but judging from his speech one would say that if anyone prepares food on Sunday then he must withdraw all his objections to desecration of the Sabbath, and he must even be prepared to play tennis on Sunday. It does not concern the discussion whether there are hon. members who go to Muizenberg on Sunday, and because the Senate jumps into the fire, it is not necessary for us to do so. There is no doubt, moreover that the employees of the House will have to do extra work as a result of the motion being passed. We often speak of desecration of the Sabbath, but now we want to give an example to the country. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg very heartily. Hon. members may do what they like outside the House, but I ask what prevents them sitting in their rooms and working there if they want to. The hon. member for Harrismith told us how pleasantly he used to spend his Sundays in the rooms of the Senate, and that he did so in an edifying manner. If he had, however, taken notice then he would himself have seen that all are not so holy there.

Have you been there on a Sunday?

Yes.

So, what were you doing there then?

I do not want to go into that, but if the Senate makes a mistake we need not also make a mistake. We, as the House of Assembly, are obliged to set an example to the country.

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) said he did not intend speaking, but that he was forced to do so by the speech of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers). I think that in turn I am brought to my feet by the speech of the hon. member. It seems to me that he thinks he ought to make his voice heard on every subject. He has made serious accusations here against the Senate. Let me just tell my hon. friend that I have certainly been three times as long as he in Parliament, but that I have never yet heard of any case of irregularity.

I think hon. members should not make any further remarks with reference to the Senate.

Then I shall speak of “the other place.”

The hon. member must understand that he must not continue any remarks with reference to the other place.

The hon. member for Boshof made certain remarks, but if he is as honest as he makes out with reference to the amendment when he says that the acceptance of the recommendations of the Select Committee would cause a desecration of the Sabbath, then I want to ask him if it is not a fact that he bathes at Muizenberg on Sunday. I believe in a man who can stand to his guns, but I prefer a man who is pure and upright, and does not drag in religion to effect his purpose. There are sufficient proofs that we who come from the far north have not a home here such as that to which we are accustomed. On Sundays we often want to sit quietly alone to write letters, etc. If my friend wants to keep to himself and go to bathe, I have no objection, but if we want the opportunity to isolate ourselves here he must not talk of desecration. I hope the House will reject the amendment.

As one of the local members, I think this report should be adopted in its entirety. There are a large number of members who cannot live at expensive hotels. I would also like to say to the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) that if he is so keen on Sabbath observance he must also remember that there is a verse in the Bible which reads—

It would be much better for him not to go into the Sabbatarian question. There are many members in Cape Town who have not the facilities to get on with their work. I know there are many members who do not bother about their correspondence, and don’t even answer it, and don’t care whether it is done or not, but there are others who do pay attention to their correspondence and other work. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) speaks about a week-end and the eight-hour day. That does not enter into the question. I know if you advertise in the morning paper for ten messengers to do the work of this House you would probably get replies from scores of men, so that argument is no good. I know there is labour available, and I am also sorry the committee has not gone into the question of the pay of both the permanent and temporary staff of the House. It is no reflection on the House to suggest that our own staff are very much underpaid. It is simply because the House does not know it. We are ourselves employing men at very low rates of pay, most of them with families to support.

I must ask hon. members to refrain from those matters which are a reflection on the House. The ordinary means are there to deal with the question, and members can bring the matter before the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements or the Select Committee on Standing Rules.

But the Committee have so far burked this question.

The hon. member cannot say that any committee has burked any question which has been brought before it.

Withdraw.

I cannot understand any hon. member asking me to withdraw. I have nothing to withdraw. I say again without any intention of reflecting on this House that hon. members should learn, probably for the first time, that we do not treat our own employees properly.

I want to point out that the question of the salaries of members of the staff is not being discussed at the moment, and hon. members should not cast reflections on the House or any committee of the House.

I will not say any more on that aspect of the matter, but I would like to deal with the practical difficulties which have been raised. There is no difficulty whatever in regard to the hours of duty in this House. It is a matter for arrangement pure and simple. You can get all the men outside that you want, thoroughly qualified men.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—35.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, G.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Mostert, J. P.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Stals, A. J.

Struben, R. H.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Nicholls, G. H.; Waterston, R. B.

Noes—50.

Alexander, M.

Ballantine, R.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Collins, W, R.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A, I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Robinson C. P.

Rood, W. H.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Visser, T. O.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

I accepted an amendment from the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) yesterday to substitute the word “verwyder” by “versit.” I thereafter consulted the legal advisers, and they informed me that the amendment was wrong. “Verwyder” here means “entirely take away,” and hon. members will see later on in Clause 35 that the word “versit” is there used to mean “to take from one place to another.” I hope the amendment will not be passed.

Amendments in Clauses 8. 9, 14 (Afrikaans), 22 (Afrikaans) and 24, the omission of Clause 25 and the amendments in lines 51 and 52 of Clause 35 put and agreed to.

Amendments in lines 35, 43 and 57 of Clause 35 put and negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 43 and 50 put and agreed to.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted, and read a third time.

It is unnecessary for me to say that it is impossible for me to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). This Clause 34 is the one about which the battle has been raging in connection with this Bill last year, and also this year at the second reading and during the committee stage, and if I should give way on this particular clause it simply means that I will give way on the most fundamental principle underlying this Bill. Before I go any further, I must just make a few general remarks in connection with the speech made last night by the hon. member for Hanover Street. In the first place, I am very sorry that on account of just a single expression on my part the hon. member has been rather ruffled. He took strong exception because I simply described him as the mouthpiece of the dental mechanics. I do not see what harm there is in calling somebody a mouthpiece of a certain section of the people. If I had said he was expressing the views here in the House of the dental mechanics, he would have taken no exception. It is merely other phraseology. I can assure him that certainly no offence was meant on my side, and I will substitute “he gave expression to the views of the dental mechanics.” Reference was also made by him to what was said on my part in connection with the certain wonderful and mysterious machine which he had mentioned in the House during a previous discussion. He made mention of the fact that the particular person who was concerned in that machine came to see me for the purpose of giving a demonstration, and that I refused to see him, and he took objection to the fact that I refused to see the man with his machine and that I could afterwards take up this attitude in the House. Let me just say here so that there can be no possible misunderstanding with regard to my receiving deputations or representations from individuals in connection with the Medical Bill, that these drugless healers are, as far as I know, unorganized, and therefore they make their representations not as a body, but as individuals. If I receive one individual, surely it would certainly not be just if I did not receive other individuals of the same class who wish to make representations, and just as good representations as the others. Also, if I receive representations in connection with this Bill or any other Bill from the one side, it is only just that I should receive them from the other side. The attitude which I have taken up was this, that this Medical Bill had been referred by Parliament on two occasions to a select committee, and that that select committee had taken evidence from all the people concerned, and that the drugless healers among others had the fullest opportunity through their best representatives to lay their views before the select committee and through the select committee before Parliament, and unless a drugless healer or anyone who was concerned at all in the Medical and Dental Bill could throw on any particular part of the Bill new light, then it is unnecessary for him to make representations to me, because I have read and considered every word of the two select committees. I do not think that attitude was at all unreasonable, and if I had opened the door to one drugless healer, then I had to give the same facilities to everyone else for and against the Bill. I think that was unnecessary and, under the circumstances, impossible. It was merely a matter of justice that I, in that particular case, refused to give an interview. Let me just further say in connection with drugless healing that I cannot accept the view that they have that high status which has been ascribed to them by some hon. members of this House and also by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) in other countries. It has been repeatedly stated in this House that drugless healers are practising, or may be registered to practise, as much as they please practically in the whole of the United States and many other countries, and that that would be a reason why we should give them the same facilities and status in South Africa. Now I have tried to get hold of the facts in connection with this, and I find that drugless healers are certainly not registered over the whole of the United States—it is very much a question whether they can be registered over a greater part of the United States. But here is a fact which we cannot ignore—when the war broke out and the United States threw in its lot in the world war, the drugless healers of the United States offered their services in the field along with other medical practitioners, and the United States Government refused their services. That shows what the United States Government, as a government, thinks of drugless healing. And it is certainly also a fact that the laws in connection with drugless healing in several of the separate states in the United States are certainly being tightened up, and if these laws are being tightened up there, and we in South Africa give additional facilities to drugless healers, the result will be that we will be flooded with them from the United States. They will not be able to make their living in their own country, and they will come to South Africa. Let me just point to another fact, and it is that, as the Bill stands now, there are quite a large number of drugless healers so-called who are certainly not excluded from practising. All that the Bill prohibits is that a drugless healer when he practises shall not, in his drugless healing, perform for gain anything specially pertaining to the calling of a medical practitioner. Under that clause as it stands, physical cultists—people who give lessons in systematic physical training, like Tromp van Diggelen—are certainly not excluded. These men may practise, and they may practise for gain. They are not prohibited from practising, but the only thing from which they are prohibited is doing something which specially pertains to the calling of a medical practitioner. A man like Tromp van Diggelen would be prohibited from practising for gain if he should diagnose disease, which is something specially pertaining to the calling of a medical practitioner. It is only right that it should be so, because he has not had the training in disease generally and diagnosis, and it is dangerous to let a man diagnose disease if he is not specially trained in it. As I explained before, this Bill actually improves the position of such men, because under the Bill these men can be registered as such, and being registered under the regulations of the Medical Council, they not only get a status, but can also be distinguished from unqualified men.

What do you mean by—registered as such?

As a physical cultist, for instance. What I have further against the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), who I think is a lawyer and will appreciate it, is that it is vague, embarrassing and bad in law. According to his amendment, drugless healers would be able to practise and to be registered as such; but has the hon. gentleman thought of it, in making his amendment, that surgeons are also drugless healers, and if his amendment remains standing as it does, any drugless healer, according to the law as it would be then, would be able to perform any act without applying or using any drugs, and any drugless healer registered would be able to perform the work of a surgeon and using for operations surgical instruments, which would certainly be a most dangerous performance? The hon. gentleman wishes to establish under the Bill a special board to deal with drugless healers, to supervize them and give them the right to practise. But nothing in his amendment shows us how, for instance, the registers are to be kept. Nothing is said in regard to that, and there is nothing in his amendment to show that these people will be brought under discipline, and that if they misconduct themselves they would be deprived of their rights. Provision is made in the Bill for expenditure in connection with the Medical Council and the Pharmacy Board, but under the hon. member’s proposal there is no provision for expenditure in connection with this board which is to be established. As far as the standards required for these people are concerned, there is nothing at all provided in his amendment. These people must be admitted by a board, and the board has full power according to their standard of training and experience. How the board is going to deal with every individual case and to judge what is a sufficient standard of training while no examinations are being held, and there is no standard of experience, I do not know. Even if in substance the hon. member’s amendment may be right, taking the legal point of view, we cannot accept it.

I do not think the Minister takes sufficient cognizance of the conditions which exist in sparsely-populated portions of the country, where, owing to distance and inability of the people to obtain the services of medical men, they are obliged to do the next best they can under the circumstances, and to go to an amateur. It has been proved abundantly how absolutely impossible it often is for these people to obtain medical aid. The costs are too high, and the conditions are such as often do not enable them to obtain such aid. A few examples have been quoted to show that amateurs are responsible for very serious consequences. I am prepared to admit that, but on the other hand, we must admit that numerous cases have also arisen where relief has been given. Remember also that medical men themselves have made most serious blunders; but are we to judge the medical profession by their failures or by their successes? Do not for a moment think that I am endeavouring to discourage the promotion and improvement of science and to get the best possible medical service we can. The Minister has further said that anyone who is not able to diagnose disease has no right to treat them. What is to happen in country districts? My servant, for instance, may suddenly fall sick. I have to use my common sense and such information as I possess to assist him.

Are you paid for it?

No.

Oh, well, if you are not paid for it you may do it.

No. But you are preventing others from charging who may be deserving of it. The Minister has probably taken part in prayer meetings for rain, believing in the efficacy of such prayers. Now, if he is going to apply that to the elements, why not in regard to human ailments?

Nothing prevents them.

Yes, but you deny him any payment for such service. Is he to live on charity? You may push the thing further, and apply it to the Veterinary Department and elsewhere. Why entrench the professions, and refuse to do it in respect of various trades? If you apply it to trades you will find that a private painter, carpenter or mason, or any man who has not the proper indentures, would be denied to work, and you would soon have the country thrown into chaos. For these reasons I support the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has said that drugless healers are necessary to attend to the country people. Does he know that there are two medical schools in South Africa, turning out competent medical practitioners, and that there is an opinion that more medical men are passing through the universities than there is work for in South Africa? Yet he wants to admit men who are half trained, and some who are not trained at all, but have plenty of assurance, to compete with these young South Africans. He has also advanced another very curious reason for recognizing drugless healers. He says that because he gives a native a dose of castor oil or epsom salts, therefore, drugless healers ought to be able to treat people and charge fees. If that argument were sound, any clerk who had been in a lawyer’s office for a few months, and could draw a will or a lease, would have equally good reasons for urging that he should be allowed to practise the legal profession, although he had not passed any legal examination. I have a circular from the secretary of the Chiropractors’ Association, in which he says that these men have been fully trained in chiropractic colleges in America. Well, we have had a good many desirable things from America, such as motor-cars and safety razors, but we also have had a good many things of questionable advantage, and I do not think we ought to follow America’s example in many directions. In America they have easy divorce, jazz music, the Charleston dance and drugless healers. The best thing the latter can do is to stay in America, and we would be well advised not to license them to practise here. A necessary preliminary to the treatment of disease is a know ledge of disease and the human frame and the ability to diagnose disease. These unlicensed people, however, instead of looking to every possible source of disease, confine themselves to one particular line. For instance, one of them believes in a water cure, another in a mud bath, and still another pins his faith to starvation, no matter what the complaint is. Others believe the seat of all disease is in the spine. Dissection, however, has shown that the theory of the chiropractors is totally erroneous, and X-rays have been used to prove the fallacy of their assertions and the unwisdom of their treatment. If the amendment is carried, all these cranks and drugless healers will come forward with their nostrums, and somebody will have to test their systems to see if they are worthy of recognition. The thing is totally impossible, because these systems are self-contradictory. Yesterday we passed a Bill to deal with land surveyors, but no hon. member suggested that some half-trained surveyor should be licensed to survey land. Evidently we think far more of our land than we do of human beings. Human beings ought to be protected as well as human possessions.

I hope the committee will not treat the amendment seriously. All civilized nations have, for the last hundred years, been trying to get away from the state of affairs which the amendment seeks to legalize. They have tried to remove the happy hunting ground of a charlatan and the religious exploiter. If the amendment were carried, it would lead to a great deal of trouble, and people would not be in a position to distinguish between the trained and the untrained person. We will have no control whatever over any system that might be introduced under the guise of drugless healing. Judging by the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), which he made last night, he is more enthusiastic than the chiropractors themselves, for I have a letter from the president of the Chiropractors’ Association, in which he says he wishes it were possible to have a Bill separate from the measure now before the committee. Their association, the president points out, is associated with the British Chiropractors’ Association, and if they are given a separate register, they would not come under the Medical Council. He desires that licences should be given to drugless healers as they are in certain states in America. At any rate, he is more practical than the hon. member for Hanover Street. They want a separate Bill. The hon. member for Hanover Street should state their case, and if he uses the same eloquence as he did on the second reading, he may be able to get such a Bill through. Then people would know exactly where the chiropractors stand, but if you mention them in the Bill many people will be confused and, in many cases, by design. What the hon. member asks for is the very negation of what the Bill is intended to do. Even by an exemption clause the designation of these people should not appear in the Bill.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) began by asking the committee not to treat my amendment seriously. It is certain he has not treated my remarks seriously. He did not even take the trouble to read the amendment, but an amendment which appeared some time ago.

Why was it changed?

The hon. member must not try to get over his mistake by irrelevance. If he had been present when the amendment was moved we should have been saved listening to a great portion of his speech. I have been in the closest touch with the president of the Chiropractors’ Association, and he has made representations to me. I know they want separate registration, and my amendment provides for separate registration. I wonder what assistance the hon. member would give me in passing a Bill to allow them to have separate registration. Do let us treat the matter seriously. When the hon. member talks about civilized states he is displaying ignorance. A number of the states of the United States recognize drugless healers. The hon. member said that civilized nations were getting away from the recognition of drugless healers. These states I have referred to are just as highly civilized as the hon. member’s state either by birth or adoption. Let the amendment be met by fair argument. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) seriously compared this matter with the Land Survey Bill. I would like to say a few words to the Minister of Public Health. I resented the Minister’s implication when, yesterday, he read a document from Johannesburg, and suggested I was pretending to represent them in the House, that I was pretending that they did not like the Bill when they said they did. The hon. Minister suggested I had no right to claim to represent the dental mechanicians, whereas, apart from the twenty men referred to in this document, I do represent the rest of the dental mechanicians. That was rather a blow to a man trying to do the right thing by them. I never intended to speak for the twenty who were included in that document, but I do speak for a large number in the Transvaal, Natal and the Cape. I take it, to use language used in this House, the incident is now closed. I am only trying to do my duty, right or wrong. The hon. Minister is now appearing in a new phase. We know him as a distinguished Minister of the Gospel and a member of this Parliament and Minister of the Crown, and now he appears as a lawyer, taking exception on legal grounds to the wording of my amendment. I should like to meet him in a court of law. I could do justice to him there. I could hardly believe him to be serious when he questioned the wording of the amendment. He ignored the word “practice.” No man could possibly claim to be a drugless healer, and then cut off a man’s leg in addition, which is the work of a surgeon. He knows, for example, that in every kind of operation chloroform is used. It is a form of medicine which no drugless healer would use or be allowed to use. Any man who performed as a drugless healer and performed the duty of a surgeon at the same time would fall immediately under Section 34. He is only protected so long as he confines himself to his own calling. Let us not be led on to a side track by phrases or forms. If the form of the wording is not suitable to the Minister, he can suggest a form that will be acceptable. The question is whether you are going to give a monopoly of healing to those who go in for medicine and drugs. The hon. Minister made rather a serious statement with regard to the army. The reason why the services of these people were refused at the time I do not know, but the statement that it was because they had no confidence in them is one upon which I should like to have evidence. The Surgeon-General of the American army in Europe, during the great war, said—

He was pleading for medical freedom. Dr. Frederick William Collins, M.D., of United States of America, also said in an article in “Physical Culture,” 1924—

[Time limit.]

There should be no necessity for the hon. member to state a case why these people should be tacked on to such a Bill as this. He states that the drugless healers and chiropractors have made such progress in America that half the population are in favour of that system. Why then, in that case, should he wish them to be mixed up with the doctors at all. In all the states he mentioned there is not a single instance where they were associated with the medical profession, yet he wants this House to tack them on, or, by means of exemption, to recognize them. I did not say civilized nations had been getting away from chiropractors. I said that for the last hundred years civilized nations have got away from the state of affairs that allowed people to be the happy hunting-ground of charlatans. To suggest that I said they were getting away from chiropractors was a different thing. If they can set up such a good case as the hon. member says they have done in the United States of America, then it is the wrong place in this Bill to deal with it. The proper time would be on another occasion and in a separate Bill. I also want to say that I am just as serious as the hon. member, and for him to suggest that I treat it with levity is wrong, and when he suggests he is the only champion of the under-dog I want to tell him I am just as sincere and conscientious in treating these matters as he is.

I hope the Minister will not allow this amendment to go through. In my opinion, it will put back the clock of national health for 50 years. If the amendment goes through we might as well scrap the Bill. It will vitiate it, emasculate it, to such an extent that it will have no effect at all when on the statute book. I am surprised at the mediaeval views of the hon. member and of the hon. members for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers), and Middelburg (Mr. Heyns). I was surprised to hear the tirade of abuse they poured on the medical profession yesterday. You would think the doctors were a kind of thieves’ kitchen out to rook the public at every turn, and serving no useful purpose. I do not think “the three musketeers” had a single good word to say for the medical profession. I would like to say the medical profession in South Africa has maintained a very high standard. No one has said that the medical profession holds a monopoly of virtue, but from the way these three members held forth yesterday you would think no good could come from the medical profession. They may have their black sheep—even this House is not without its black sheep—

Name them.

Hear, hear.

One of those black sheep is bleating now.

Carry on the good work.

The standard of probity of the medical profession in South Africa is a very high one, and the virulent attack made on the medical profession is not justified. I think the three gentlemen owe the profession an apology. They brought no evidence against the profession. On general grounds they abused them, and the hon. member for Namaqualand gave a mediaeval display of ignorance. Not only was it ignorant, but it was very unfair.

According to your judgment.

He has no judgment; why worry?

No, in the judgment of the House and the public. I think the House generally and the public of the country will agree with me when I say that the standard of efficiency and the code of probity holding in the medical profession are very high indeed. I was very sorry to listen to this tirade against the medical profession As far as this amendment is concerned. I fully agree with the Minister that if it is passed, more especially in its present form, it will simply sap the value of the whole Bill. It will mean the letting loose on the public of South Africa of a crowd of quacks. We do not want a C3 nation in South Africa, and nothing will conduce more towards making us a C3 nation than not tightening up our medical profession. Nothing will damage the cause of national health so much as allowing unqualified men to wreak their worst on the public. I do hope that the Minister will stand firm and not agree to this amendment.

I think that anyone can support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) without in any way casting any reflection whatever on the integrity, the probity and the good intentions of the medical profession.

I am speaking of those three gentlemen opposite.

The last speaker has said that if these unqualified persons whom my hon. friend (Mr. Alexander) is speaking for are allowed to have their way, it will interfere with the national health of the country. The amendment does not refer to unqualified persons. It only refers to qualified persons, to persons who are qualified in some method of healing other than the orthodox method of the medical practitioner.

What is the orthodox method?

Mainly by medicines. My hon. friend knows as well as I do the orthodox methods of the medical fraternity in healing of relying mainly on drugs.

No.

If the doctor does not give medicine, what does he give, except his bill? The last speaker (Col. D. Reitz) said that if this amendment is carried it will put the clock back 50 years in South Africa, but I venture to say that if the amendment is not carried it will put the clock back 50 years by closing the door to modern methods of healing which have been proved efficacious time and time again by thousands of people in all parts of the world as equal, and in many cases superior, to the methods adopted by the medical fraternity. For the 15 years that I have been in the House I have stood up for the drugless healers from my own experience and from reading what has taken place in other parts of the world, and from contact with people who have benefited time and again from this method of treatment when they have either been declared incurable or have not been in any way benefited by the medical fraternity. When I sat on the cross benches I had in my possession something like 300 to 400 testimonies, independent testimonies, sent by different people from all parts of South Africa, most of them testifying that they had been in the hands of the medical fraternity for many years without being healed, and had then resorted to drugless healers, and in all those cases they had been benefited or been healed of their trouble. You cannot slam the door on drugless healing when it is doing so much good in the country, providing your drugless healers are qualified to practise in the method in which they are practising. The amendment provides for the setting up of some competent board in order that only those who are qualified in their particular line of healing should be allowed to continue as healers in that line.

Who is going to judge of their qualifications?

In other countries they have had no difficulty in judging of their qualifications. You can have a board consisting of people who understand the methods, chiropractics, osteopaths or whatever they might be. Who is it that judges of the medical fraternity? Medical men. You would have to set up a competent board who would be able to pass judgment on the qualifications of those whom they are competent to judge in respect of the methods of healing in which they are qualified. Does this House know that there are young South Africans who have been through the university here and have gone over to other countries and have actually undertaken a course of study in drugless healing, and have got their qualifications and returned to South Africa, good South Africans who are practising this method of healing in which they have been overseas to qualify and for which they have got their diplomas? Are you going to slam the door against these people? Are you going to make them criminals? This House has no right to compel any individual to go and place himself entirely in the hands of a medical practitioner if he has no confidence in the methods adopted by the medical fraternity. You have no right to compel me to go to a medical man when, from past experience, I have not had the benefit which I have had from the hands of the drugless healer, and I refuse to be compelled by legislation or anything else to go to a medical man. I will go to the man who I know can heal me. You are practically giving a monopoly to the medical fraternity, and saying that they and they only are qualified to heal people who are sick. I say, there are other sections who are equally qualified to heal the sick. Just as you give liberty to men on religious grounds, so you should grant equal liberty to the man who wants to be healed according to the methods that he feels he can get the most benefit from. My colleague and I disagree on this point, but I feel very strongly on it. I am satisfied that if it is not done to-day, you will not stop the drugless healer; you have got to meet the position sooner or later. As a matter of fact, the medical fraternity themselves keep on changing their grounds. The old method was to apply leeches and draw blood. They have departed from that and have come to injections and other things. Let them have those methods, but do not compel people to undergo treatment that they totally disagree with. The medical fraternity a few years ago ostracized the man who first discovered that blood circulated through the body. They said that he was a quack. You cannot say that at any particular time medical science or any other science has said the last word. Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Minister of Public Health, only last year in the British Parliament, when an attempt was made by a member, a medical man, to bring in legislation which would prevent the drugless healers from carrying on their work in Great Britain, clearly said that any person is entitled to go to any other person for treatment if he thinks that he can benefit by that treatment, but he must take the consequences of going to that person, and no one should deprive him of the opportunity of doing so. That was the liberal and broad-minded attitude of the Minister of Public Health in the House of Commons only last year. Let us have safeguards if you like; take all adequate steps to see that we do not leave our people in the hands of people who cannot properly treat them—the Board will be able to judge on that—but I should regret it very much if this country were to close the door to all methods of healing except those of the medical fraternity. You may try, you may pass legislation, but you will not succeed. People will go where they get the benefit, and people will practise even if they go to jail for it. You cannot stop up-to-date methods, or the march of scientific advancement—because it is science; they have just as much science as the medical fraternity. You cannot prevent my going to these people if I have more confidence in them than I have in the medical fraternity. I, for one, am prepared to support the amendment, and I hope the House will do so.

There is a great deal of plausible argument in what the Minister of Labour has just said. If it were purely a case of freedom, if he was claiming freedom for science, as against a particular caste or profession, trying to limit it to their own narrow view, there would be a great deal to be said for it. But he talks about the medical fraternity as if they were trying to maintain a monopoly for a particular caste or brotherhood. The medical profession is built upon science, and upon scientific enquiry.

It is the science of disease, and not the science of health.

It proceeds upon the assumption that in order to cure a trouble you must find out what it is. There is no reason for distinguishing between the medical profession on the one side and drugless healers on the other. There is no reason for the assumption that the medical profession is, for some reason or other, bound to use drugs and medicines in its operations. The Minister talks about up-to-date people; he says we are trying to stifle progress. Is not the medical profession up-to-date? Is there anything new that comes along which it refuses to investigate? Is there anything new that can be suggested by any effort of human ingenuity that the professors and teachers in the medical schools will not investigate and, if they find it correct, will not teach? Where I join issue with the Minister is this. I look at this question as one, not between one particular caste and other people who are practising different methods; I regard it as a question between scientific practice and the practice of empiricism, which bases itself not upon scientific enquiry, but upon the mere fact that such and such an operation has, in certain cases, effected a cure, and may do so in others. Certain people have been cured by it, other people may be cured. Why they have been cured they do not know. Now these osteopaths and chiropractors, I believe, profess to found their system of cure upon the theory that the troubles of mankind proceed from certain conditions of the spine. Have they ever tried to demonstrate that scientifically? Have they submitted it to any scientific test? I do not believe they have, and if they did, I believe it would prove to be absurd. It is a pseudo-scientific doctrine, put out to give their methods some appearance of scientific foundation. Drugless healers, of course, do good. Massage does good; certain courses of diet do good; it does a man good sometimes to be thoroughly punched, either behind or in front.

Especially in front.

But I do not see anything in that upon which a system of cure can be founded. My whole objection to the Minister’s argument is that he is trying to claim scientific validity for a system of cure which depends merely upon a number of successful cases. He points out that the medical profession in the past have set up and discarded all sorts of methods. Of course they have, but so have his friends. We have had all sorts of wonderful things which have been in vogue for some time and have then been discarded as useless. I am not a believer in drugs; I do not deny for a moment that medical practitioners have been, in the past, and are still, far too much and too blindly addicted to giving people drugs to cure disease conditions which could be cured in other ways.

You cannot get health out of a bottle.

You can get a good many things out of bottles, but I am not going into that with the Minister. I believe the one great fountain of cure is nature. If nature does not cure you, you will die. All I am pleading for is a scientific method of helping nature as against unscientific methods. If we are going to allow these people to advertise, then we are going to strike a blow at the medical profession.

Then stop them from advertising.

They won’t thank the Minister for that suggestion. Advertising is the lifeblood of their success, and the trouble is that they are subject to no rules of that kind, and the medical profession is.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) says that we are insulting the doctors and their profession, and ought to apologize. The hon. member is quite wrong. I did not insult the doctors, but my standpoint has always been to prevent monopolies. Hence I support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I fell that we are drawing the circle too narrow. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said that we were ignorant or incompetent or something of that sort.

Mediaeval.

Yes, we are living fifty years behind the times.

No, 700 years.

There are quacks who are useless, but there are others who have already cured many people. There are also doctors who are worth nothing. Take, e.g., Mrs. Ralie Botha. She has already cured many people of cancer, people who first consulted the best doctors in the towns. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) says repeatedly that cancer is only a growth. Why then do the doctors not draw it out? Aunt Ralie Botha does so. We are pleading for the people who have done much good, and that surely is not insulting the doctors. The amendment is very fair. The other amendments allege that the people do much harm because they give wrong medicine on account of not being able to diagnose. We have here to do with people who do not use medicine. Why cannot we protect them? They have experience and have proved, in many instances, that they can benefit people. Hon. members have reproached us for being stupid and wanting to join in the debate, and that we said nothing about the Survey Bill. If the surveyor makes a mistake we can rectify it and go to his office, but if a doctor makes a mistake we must bury the mistake six foot under ground.

No one doubts the sincerity or the honesty of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) when he asks why we are making an attempt to tack this on to the Bill, but he knows that this Bill seeks to take away certain rights which exist to-day.

What rights?

The rights of chiropractors, who are practising to-day in Johannesburg.

Unlawfully.

But they are doing it. The hon. member talks about charlatans and exploiters, but has the hon. member not seen all the advertisements of drugs in the newspapers? I will guarantee that more harm is done by all the drugs sold by chemists than all the harm that can be done by chiropractors. In the newspapers you find expensive advertisements of drugs and quack remedies which pretend to cure all the ills you can think of. The hon. member has not raised his voice to stop that evil, and the hon. member must admit that it is an evil. There are even cures advertised for miners’ phthisis, and photographs are published of men who are supposed to have been cured. There are also testimonials from individuals. These evils will go on even if this Bill is passed. During the ’flu epidemic, while municipal and other bodies were doing all they possibly could, you found advertisements which were said to cure ’flu, and you found the liquor kings advertising brandy as a cure. One must admit that during epidemics the great thing is cleanliness, and the medical profession does recognize the harm done by filthy surroundings, proving that the medical profession have improved beyond the day when they thought that only drugs mattered. There is hardly a chemist in this country who has not a cure of his own for some particular evil or ill, and why is he not prohibited from advertising his remedies and posing as a medical man? He is doing nothing else. I am in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), which clearly sets forth that these people with which the amendment deals will have to prove their qualifications before a board set up under the Bill. A separate Bill should have been brought in before this one. I have not a word to say against the medical profession, but the Bill does seek to create a monopoly for that profession. Every doctor is not beyond reproach. It has been proved that many of the methods of the medical profession are obsolete, and as knowledge increases so their methods change. The Bill seeks to create a monopoly, and to compel people to go to a doctor, and not to have the liberty to go to other people whom they consider will do them good. Faith in a doctor is half the battle towards obtaining a cure. I hope the amendment will be accepted, so that chiropractors and drugless healers may be brought under proper supervision and no quacks be allowed to practise.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) seems to base his objection to the Bill on the ground that it may affect vested interests, but the amendment goes very much further than merely protecting drugless healers practising now—it protects them for all time. The public are also entitled to protection. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) held forth about the merits of a notorious cancer doctor. I lived at Heilbron, where there was also a famous cancer doctor. One of the most horrible sights I ever witnessed was when he took me to see one of his patients, a woman who was being treated for cancer with some virulent type of poison. Her breasts were eaten away with cancer, and three months afterwards she was dead. So far as I know, that man is probably practising to-day. It is very difficult to prosecute them, because you can hardly ever prove that they accept payment for their services. After I saw that ghastly sight it cured me of all faith in drugless healers. I have here a book by an American doctor, Mr. Morris Fishbein, who gives the reason why so large a section of the public are inclined to support bone-setters and so on. He says—

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) told us that chiropractice had no basis in scientific fact. This is what Dr. Fishbein says—

Yet the Minister of Labour is a firm believer in chiropractors. Dr. Fishbein continues—

If the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) will read the evidence given before the select committee, he will see that the chiropractors base their entire case on the fallacy that practically all human disease is due to the pressure of the spine on one or more nerves—

The author of this book is a well-known authority, and it is clear that it has been proved over and over by scientists that the whole art of the chiropractors is based on a fallacy. They play up to the weaknesses of a section of the public. He says at the start that there is a tendency on the part of human beings to leap at any cure or suggestion like a drowning man at a straw. I feel this House will make a fatal mistake if we allow this amendment to figure on the statute book. It would mean once more opening the floodgates. If the amendment goes through there would be no control whatever. The hon. Minister shakes his head. How would you control them then? He would have to rely upon the evidence of people who say they have been cured.

They have diplomas.

We have a member of this House assuring us that an old lady in the Middelburg district has cured countless cancer cases given up by the doctor. No authentic case has been proved. If one case had been substantiated it would have created a furore through the scientific world. Most cancer cases are given up by the doctor. I have seen a shelf of growths in spirits extracted from a patient in tremendous agony, but I have never known a permanent cure. In the end the victim dies if it is cancer. In the meantime she has been buoyed up by false hopes and has undergone untold agony. I know not a single case of a permanent cure achieved by these so-called cancer doctors.

You know very little then.

I know as much as the hon. member on this subject. I have had personal experience of these cancer doctors and of their victims. There is no case on record of a permanent cancer cure effected by unqualified practitioners. They put some kind of corrosive sublimate, and the growth comes away, but as sure as anything it comes again. In the meantime the patient is going through purgatory. I do hope the House will not pass this amendment.

I spoke yesterday afternoon on behalf of the dental mechanic, but to-day it is quite another matter, and I think we must be very careful about the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). We know that people come here from America who have certainly not graduated in a good university. We can find people in America who have obtained their degrees through the post or in some such way. It is terribly easy to get a degree in America, and I saw a little building in Chicago where degrees were issued on the payment of a few hundred dollars and the answering of certain questions. And then a man can come here and say that he is a graduate. That is a dangerous state of affairs, because one might obtain a degree without having worked for it. In some of the smaller towns there are universities that really do not deserve the title, but the students from there come to practise here. They have had a certain education, but not at all a thorough one, and they may do more harm than good. Therefore, we ought to be careful about accepting the amendment as drawn, because I am afraid that we shall open the door for all kinds of things that are wrong. The attitude of the hon. members for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) and for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) made the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. ). Reitz) say that they ought to apologize to the doctors. I want to say that if there is a man who should apologize, the last-named hon. gentleman should do so to himself, because he is always a man for abuse and the saying of irresponsible things. This is a case of “Satan punishing the Devil.” He must be careful not to punish as he has done this afternoon, because one ought first of all to sweep clean before your own door. We feel that we are dealing with a matter which is of very great importance. Quacks have been mentioned, and I well remember a case in the days of the old Cape Parliament that a certain Mrs. van Niekerk, of Stellenbosch, represented that she had a cure for cancer. Enquiry was made, and the analyst found out that the chief ingredient thereof was caustic soda. Steps were taken, and she was prevented from treating any more cases of cancer. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will very well recollect the case. I feel that much harm is done in our country to-day by patent medicines which are represented as curing practically any disease. Patent medicines, however, are not pleaded for, but merely for the man who wants to perform a nature cure. However much we may believe in naturopaths, I am not in favour of them, because they are not scientific people who have made an investigation of the human body. Therefore we ought to be very careful, and not accept the amendment of the hon. member of Cape Town (Hanover Street). We must understand that we have to do with people who have possibly had a certain training in America, but not a scientific training. They have obtained degrees there and come here to inculcate things by which our poor people are often deceived, and if you, in addition to that, allow a certain kind of method for the cure of any kind of disease to pass, then it is the greatest folly possible. Each ailment must be treated in its own way. Many of our doctors to-day hardly use medicine any longer, because they feel that they must be very careful on account of the fact that many people, by taking too much medicine, have undermined their constitution. There are scientific men who have made a thorough medical study in Europe who hardly use any more anaesthetics, because they see that it does more harm than good. We have sufficient qualified and honest physicians in the country, and in Pretoria most of the doctors are men in whom one feels complete confidence. We can allow ourselves to be easily gulled by the naturopaths, and they can obtain money without doing much good. I cannot, therefore, support the amendment, and I hope the Minister will not accept it.

The hon. member who has just spoken (Dr. van Broekhuizen) said that these people do not study, and that they come here without degrees. I wish he would read the evidence given before the Select Committee. If he had none that, he would not have made these remarks. Has he read the evidence of the Rev. Malherbe, whose sons went overseas and came back here to practise? I am not wanting to give the right to practise to people who have not had training. My amendment proposes to set up a Board which will decide whether those who come before them have the necessary qualifications. Everything except medicine which the doctor learns they have got to learn.

Then why don’t they become doctors?

How many years does that course extend over?

Four.

They might as well qualify for the medical profession while they are about it.

In regard to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) read, viz., one doctor’s opinion in America, I have got here the opinions of a large number of medical men in America, men who have become chiropractors themselves, after practising medicine for years. It has been suggested that these chiropractors advertize. Under my amendment they would come under all the disciplinary provisions of this Bill, except that the discipline would be exercized by a Board set up by the Government, and not by the Medical Council. It would be unfair that the Medical Council, who do not believe in the mat all, and who say they are quacks, should be judges of them. They must have a board composed of people who know what their training is, and who would deal with them exactly as the Medical Council deals with its own medical practitioners. Under the circumstances, I cannot agree, as indicated by some members, that there is anything dangerous about this amendment, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

The points at issue in this matter are difficult enough, without statements being made which are not correct. In answer to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), I would point out that this Bill merely provides that the diagnosis of disease should he carried out by a properly trained medical man. We believe that the medical man so far is the only man who has had an adequate course of preparation and training which would enable him to diagnoze disease. As to the other cults which we have been discussing here, I think it must be quite clear that their course of training is not a sufficient guarantee to allow them to exercise a practice among the general public. The Minister of Labour to my mind confuses the treatment meted out by medical men. Treatment as dispensed by medical men does not consist of merely giving prescriptions for this or that liquid, or this ointment or that ointment. Treatment in a medical sense allows of every possible source of information and discovery in the course of centuries which has led to the conviction that this may benefit the human constitution. In regard to what the Minister said about blood circulation, that is three hundred years back. At that time you could hardly speak of the existence of a medical profession. At that date, apart from some knowledge of anatomy, there was really no basis for medical treatment at all. Some of these chiropractors have had probably a better training, but still it is a limited training. Medical men avail themselves to a large extent of drugless treatment. Physical treatment is very important, and to claim it only for the drugless healers is quite unfair. Then there is massage, a very important method of treatment which is drugless, and to appropriate that for the drugless healers is unfair when it is something which has been used by the medical profession for half a century. Then there is the psychological element. I want to admit that psychological influence is shared by the medical profession and chiropractors and others. We honestly try to use it for the improvement of the physical frame under the influence of the mind. Professor Coué, a French doctor, was one who brought this to the forefront, but he has no claim to it, he merely brought it forward. Many of the other cults abuse the psychological element in the system. The human mind is very easily influenced, and the human mind certainly does exercise an influence on the body. Human psychology is such that anyone is capable of influencing the body to a certain extent, even without the slightest knowledge of the correlation between body and mind. I have come across cases where this element has been abused by men who have no right to practise it, and who have imposed upon the public because they are gullible. I want to refer to a man who is earning £10 a day because of the credulity of the public. It is a shame that such a man is allowed to advertise. It ought to be prevented. I am told he is making £10 a day by dispensing a few drops of oil to the believers. Let us consider the methods of treatment. [Time limit.]

I think the whole matter amounts to a question of practice and before we vote I should like to have an assurance from the Minister. No one will dare to deny that if the public can get a Well qualified doctor they will not go after a quack, but if the public in the far off areas use quacks the reason is that they cannot get a qualified man. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, whether he is prepared to take all possible steps to assure the public in those parts of the services of qualified doctors. In a speech he made recently the Minister mentioned a scheme by which centres were being established in various outside districts to which doctors would go and the people from the district could come to, and the doctors would also go out to the people for a small payment to cover petrol, of course excluding the ordinary medical fees. I should now like to ask the Minister if the department will take steps as soon as possible to introduce such a system so that our people can be attended by qualified doctors, If the Minister can give me this assurance I shall vote for the Bill with pleasure, otherwise I shall not be able to vote against the amendment.

The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) had a good deal to say in favour of cancer curers, and quoted some instances of cures by an old lady in his district. This matter was enquired into by the select committee on this Bill in 1923, and I would just like to read a short extract of the evidence given by Dr. Mitchel, the Secretary of Public Health—

I think that the claims of the cancer curers would vanish into thin air if this were known to the public who seek their aid. The medical profession for years have abandoned this treatment, and these cancer curers display ignorance of the disease and the whole position. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) tells us that chiropractors have four years’ training, but he does not tell us that some have two years’ or only two months’ training, or have only undertaken a correspondence course. Assuming that they have four years’ training, why do they not go to a medical school?

They do not believe in medicine.

But surely they do not object to have a knowledge of the body —of physiology and anatomy and so on. They could attend a medical school and specialise in their cult. Nobody would object to that. What we do object to is that these people, without sufficient training, seek to treat disease as if they know all about it, but experience shows that they are ignorant not only of the human body but of the diseases they seek to treat. The Minister of Labour has compared the medical profession with a trade union, but I do not think that is a fair comparison. A trades union has certain hours of work seven or eight hours a day—whereas a medical man works long hours and is not limited to seven or eight hours. Trade unions object to having more than a certain number of apprentices, as they are afraid they will be swamped, wages reduced and conditions lowered by having too many men in their trade, but the medical men do not do that and have no objection to hundreds or even thousands of youngsters coming forward to study for the medical profession.

Oh yes, they have very strong objections.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Any student is at liberty to study who wants to qualify, and when he is qualified he is not prevented from practising as a doctor, which proves my statement. Assuming for the sake of argument the medical profession is a close one, and on the same footing as a trade union, why do not the gentleman who represent Labour support it? They ought to protect a trade union —they are trade unionists themselves, but now do their best to break down this so-called trade union. The Minister of Labour has also said that medical men are continually changing their methods—of course, they are. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), they are open to investigate new treatments, and they carry on research with regard to new methods. We saw, for instance, in the newspapers the other day a series of articles dealing with the Spahlinger treatment for tuberculosis. Once such a new treatment is established it is published to the world by medical men and not kept as a secret like those of cancer curers who profess to have secret methods. You have a stream of cults— people who profess drugless healing—one thing one day and followed by something different after six months. Hydropathy is followed by mud baths; then some osteopaths and chiropractors, and each one for the time being says his method is the only one by which disease can be cured. That is where they show their ignorance.

They do not claim that.

That is the claim advanced by chiropractors and osteopaths.

I am also in favour of the Minister allowing relief. I am not against the doctors, and am convinced of it that we have doctors who are the most competent in the world, but on the other hand there are also poor ones who kill more people than they cure, and who ought to be struck off the roll. In cases of cancer the doctors at once Use the knife, but usually the disease becomes much worse if it is operated upon and the people die. It is well known that there are persons who cure cancer, e.g., Mrs. Landsberg, of Roodepoort. How many people are there not who have been cured by her, who otherwise would to-day have been in their graves? The doctors can do nothing for cancer patients, and I feel that provision should be made in the Bill so that there may be a compromise in such cases. On the countryside there are many people who cannot afford or obtain a doctor, and there are people called quacks who know something about the disease, and who do very good work. If the Bill is passed to prevent them performing cures and making them pay a fine of £100 for representing themselves as a doctor it is very hard. We have a doctor in Johannesburg and, although many people laugh about it, and I also have laughed about it, I have subsequently been astonished at what the man has done. He does not use medicines, but uses water in his treatment. In Johannesburg the doctors are falling over each other, but there are cases where they cannot cure the patient, while the miracle doctor can. I do not know how he does it, but still, it happens. For the sake of the population of the country and the sick, I think it is unfair not to give him a chance when he suffers from a complaint which cannot be cured, and not to allow him to go to a miracle doctor. Such a man is like a drowning man catching at a straw, and I think it is unfair to prevent anyone by legislation from performing a cure if he can do it. The cure of cancer cannot be disputed. It is a disease which has increased amazingly recently, and it is a pity that the doctors have not yet been able to find a cure. It is not only Mrs. Landsberg who cures such cases, but there are other people in the country who have a means of killing cancer. I know of a case where four cancers were drawn out of a woman, and although it happened ten years ago, she is still well to-day. It is only fair that the Minister should give these people a chance where they are competent and where people are convinced that they can perform a cure to allow them to go on with their work.

I just want to say a few words with reference to the last speech. I admit there are a few women who have performed cures in cancer cases. I believe it, and I do not think that it would be a good thing to stop their work by legislation. As I understand the Bill, however, such cures are not prohibited. The Bill expressly says that if people make their living from it, it will be an offence. It is not, however, their living, and if they want to assist people they can continue to do so. Why does my hon. friend want to plead for those few people? I have had much experience in this connection, especially in the Transvaal, and if you allow the opening which the hon. member wants then something will be done which will do the people ten times more harm than good. The hon. member surely remembers the case of the Asiatic miracle doctor in Pretoria and what he did to honourable women. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) will also remember the gentleman who went round Middelburg laying on hands. I shall not now say what he did, but steps ought to be taken to put an end to such abuses.

You say then that the Bill does not put an end to it?

The Bill must put a stop to it. The hon. member laughs, but those people have made a living by the evil they have done, and the person in Middelburg was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. I sympathize with the two women who have been mentioned, but patients can continue to go to them. I am talking about the quacks and blackguards who come and hold themselves out as miracle doctors. We must be protected against them. I have stood by the Minister throughout the debate of this Bill, and I will assist him in getting this clause passed. I do not think my hon. friend will object to my speaking like this. I repeat that as I understand the Bill there is nothing to stop me from going to one of the women who have been mentioned. If I wish I can do so, and if she can cure me then it depends upon what I will do for her as a friend.

I would like to deal with the statement of the hon. member for Hope town (Dr. Stals) where he said this Bill did not create a monopoly for the medical profession. [Clause 34 read.] That makes for a monopoly for the medical profession. It says clearly—

When the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) spoke of a chiropractor only having three months’ experience, I would point out the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) does away with that because the board will see these men are qualified. There is adequate machinery in the amendment to meet such a case. When the hon. member for Dundee referred to apprentices, he overlooked the fact that while a medical student is qualifying he does not work on a job at cheap rates. When a bricklayer is an apprentice he does the work at the lower rate of pay. A medical student, however, is not allowed to come into competition with a doctor until he has finished his apprenticeship, then the minimum charges are fixed by the Medical Council, and there can be no “scabs” in that profession. That point wants clearing up, and will explain the reason why trade unions adopt the policy they do. If the Medical Council found students coming into the field and charging half the fees of a qualified man, we should soon hear something further about the matter.

Everybody is entitled to give an expression of opinion, and the hon. Minister will find more water in his mill when he has listened to them all. I should like to say that I remember a case that came to my notice of someone who had been to one of these cancer doctors, and had half his cheek torn out by the cancer plaster process. It was not cancer at all, but a form of venereal disease. They generally apply arsenical paste, and it was so in this case, and half this man’s cheek was damaged before it was found out there had been a wrong diagnosis. If he had gone to a proper doctor he would never have had this pain. It is necessary, therefore, they should only go to a doctor, and anybody treating such cases without proper qualifications is committing a criminal offence.

The doctors in the House talk so much in favour of the monopoly. I do not think they ought to have the right. It is a matter in which they are directly concerned. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) mentioned a case here where a quack had adopted wrong treatment. I am restraining myself to my utmost capacity not to mention my experience with doctors. My experience in the past twelve months alone is sufficient to put the doctors in so bad a light that I do not wish to do it. It is constantly said that we farmers of the countryside know nothing. These hon. members grew up with doctors and believe in them. It is different with us on the countryside—we believe in our customs.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

When the House adjourned I was saying that my own brother went to a quack. The doctors all said that he had cancer, and that they could not do anything for him. He then went to Aunt Ralie Botha, and she cured him. That was years ago and he is still well to-day. In the same way I could mention a number of people. It is now said that the select committee went into the matter and took evidence, but from what side did the evidence come? It was possibly another lot of doctors who gave evidence and the people from the countryside were not properly summoned. I just want to ask the Minister if it is right now to give a further monopoly to the doctors? I frankly admit that there are a great many who are first-class men, but I have learned by experience that there are quite a number whom one is unable to trust.

The hon. member has said that more than once.

Then I will say it again.

If the hon. member says it again I must ask him to sit down.

Then I shall try not to say it again. What control has the Minister over the kind of doctor who is worth nothing? He will get nothing out of the other doctors, because if there is anything that is wrong they will not say so. It is an important matter to us, a matter of life and death, and I want to beg of the Minister not to deprive us of our liberty too much, and not to bind us unconditionally to a class of people of whom half are good and the other half do not amount to much, and are untrustworthy.

The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) expressed his surprise at hon. members on the cross benches not supporting this Bill as it stands. He went on to point out that this Bill is something running on similar lines to the constitution applicable to the trade union movement. I think I can state definitely that we have not one single member on these cross benches who is not prepared to support the principle of this Bill, but at the same time we desire as far as we possibly can to carry out something that we have always tried to carry out in the trade union movement. We are often criticized for the methods that we adopt in trying to protect our trades, but we have never yet gone as far as this Bill intends to go. We do say that we do not prevent any individual from earning a livelihood and possibly becoming a member of a trades union if he can prove that he has had the necessary number of years’ training to qualify him for the work that he takes up. This Bill goes further and says that, irrespective of the experience gained by the individual over a number of years, that individual is to be debarred from proceeding further with his practice. I, for one, and the rest of us, are not prepared to grant any protection to the quacks that have been spoken about, but we have members of the community who have been carrying on certain practices for a large number of years, and I want to quote one specific case which has been brought to my notice. In Johannesburg we have one of the finest X-ray experts that can be found in this country or elsewhere. He has carried on his practice for something like 25 years without interference, and has built up a considerable practice there. I understand that this Bill now intends to put that individual out of business. Further than that, he has taken on in the same business are turned soldier and taught him this work. Are we to be told that because these men do not hold medical diplomas they are to be debarred from carrying on this work? If that is so, then I am rather surprised that these professions are being made more than closed professions. I would suggest that if anyone on these benches ventured to bring in a Bill of that description, the press of this country would ring. I do hope that the Minister will listen to the appeal that has been made on behalf of these people. Quite a number of them have been spoken about, men who, though naturally not belonging to the medical profession, have been very useful and helpful to the community at large, and instead of being pushed out of their profession, they should be given the necessary protection. Under the amendment I do not see how they can possibly get beyond the law. The board which is proposed to be set up under the amendment will see that no one who makes application will be granted a certificate of competency unless he can prove to the satisfaction of that board that he is qualified to do the work that he proposes to carry on.

There are some hon. members who object very strongly to the Bill, but it seems to me that they are objecting to something that does not exist. The hon. members for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers)and Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) still have the same right to go to the people who can effect cures as they always had, and they have the same right to put their hands in their pockets to reward the people if they wish to. Have hon. members never thought that if the Bill allowed an opening and quacks were permitted to practise for reward, of what the consequences would be? The result will be that quacks would stream into South Africa from other countries to practise here. Have our people not yet had adequate experience in this respect? Hon. members have apparently forgotten that humanity does not stand still, and that, according to its development, legislation must be amended, otherwise we shall get into a hopeless condition.

England has not yet amended its laws in that respect.

Then in that respect England is still behindhand. There are hon. members who have mentioned the operation for appendicitis, but that is a cure for the disease. How many lives have not been saved because science has so far advanced that the disease can be stopped by the removal of the small bowel? Previously death was the only salvation. I agree that doctors’ fees are sometimes too high, but what can be done? The only thing that will reduce them is competition, and to-day there are so many young people studying medicine that the fee of one guinea in five or ten years will be reduced to 5s. or 2s. 6d. I am infavour of fixing doctors’ fees, but how is it to be done? If payment is to be made by the hour, then the doctor may delay longer than necessary, and it will be impracticable to pay according to mileage. If a satisfactory Bill is brought before the House I will support it in the interests of the countryside, but such a Bill may arouse a great controversy. It has been pointed out in the House, and we know it from experience, that the doctors so regulate their fees as to make the rich man pay much, but that is because he is in that way enabled to treat the poor man, who cannot pay, for nothing. I know of a doctor who abused this, but the result was that he had to leave the village, because he was no longer supported.

I am glad that the former speaker mentioned that we may still go to Aunt Ralie Botha. We know that. She is a poor woman, and if everybody were constantly to go to her and pay her nothing, she would soon stop her healing work. The hon. member also spoke of the appendicitis operation. I know that in my constituency there is an old man of 83 years who went to one of the best surgeons in Cape Town 14 years ago, and he was given three days to live if he did not undergo the operation. I can give the name of the doctor. The old man, however, would not permit it, and went home to die. Up there along-side the river there lives a so-called quack, who said that he would come and live with the old man and cure him. After three weeks the old man was better, without ever having had an operation. There are two schools of thought about this matter to-day. Because the King of England was operated upon, that operation is submitted to, but the German view is that it is unnecessary. The Cape Town doctors may draw a fence around themselves, but on the countryside the people know what they want. A doctor will not go 30 or 40 miles to visit a poor patient. On account of our strong defence of this matter we are accused of ignorance, but one hears a different story in the lobbies. One of the principal members of the House, a member of the previous Government, told the following story. A doctor went to a man and asked him what he operated on patients for. He replied £100. For what complaint? he was asked. For the complaint that he had £100, the second doctor replied. This is not a joke. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) said a remarkable thing this afternoon when he referred to his medical friends who are well-known physicians not believing in medicine. If a qualified physician practises without medicines he can do so, but if anybody without a diploma wants to do so then he is not allowed. How much of the medicine which is used to-day has not been discovered by other people? There is, e.g., the case of the young man in Piquetberg who discovered the use of oline oil. He may, however, not prescribe it, but the apothecaries who have now heard of it may advertise and sell it. We also know that when Coué went to London, the police had to line the streets so that people could consult him. If anyone who has not a medical diploma discovers a remedy for cancer and consumption, then he may not prescribe it for reward. It will not be used, because experience has taught us that the rich man does nothing gratis. Then the poor man will have to do it, but the question of expense arises. We know of the case of the late Dr. Andrew Murray, who went to London to get people to pray for him, and he was cured.

One need not be paid in order to pray.

Such a person cannot, however, travel from one place to another without money. The doctors are becoming afraid. I can imagine what long faces the doctors in London had when Coué went there, and they noticed what faith the people had in him. They were not afraid that he would kill the patients, but that he would cure them, so that faith in him would increase. We must take account of the needs of the countryside, which has so many troubles. If we are going to draw a fence round the medical profession, then the poor people will not feel that they have the right to live. We must endeavour to give the poor man medical assistance as well. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) has mentioned that the doctors’ fees will in a few years come down to 5s. or 2s. 6d., but that is quite improbable.

I want to emphasize one or two points in connection with this amendment. The first point is the diagnosis of disease, the most important factor in the art of healing. We realize that doctors have made mistakes; it is human to err, but I would like to say that a man who has gone through his proper training is likely to be more correct in his diagnosis than one of these osteopaths or any other “paths” who has had no real training in reference to diagnosis. If this amendment passes, if it legalizes the position of these drugless healers, you will then have to give them the right, which they have not at present, that of signing death certificates. If not, you are casting a grave reflection upon them as drugless healers. They are supposed to be able to diagnoze the case treated according to their methods, and if the patient unfortunately dies, they will have to give a death certificate. This makes it a very grave question as to whether men who have not gone through the true training should have the right of signing a death certificate. It opens up a vista in the future which I am sure many of us regret. Then there is the question of inability; that is, our drugless healers will have authority and power to sign certificates of the inability of workers to go to their work. This affects a huge number of people in this country. It might even affect some of the hon. members of this House. So I feel we are opening up another avenue in this question of drugless healers having the legalized power of treating patients. We will find them signing death certificates and certificates for inability to attend work. Surely it is impossible for us to accept an amendment of this kind.

It seems to me as if we have spoken so much about this subject that we are no longer in earnest. The actual matter being discussed seems to a disinterested listener to practically amount to this, that because doctors have failed in certain particular cases and possibly have not made a satisfactory diagnosis that therefore unscientific persons are better able to do so, in other words, where science has failed we now want to allege that unscientific persons will do better. If we pass such an amendment then we ought to ask the question what it will mean in future. It will mean that I, e.g., am going to discover a method of treatment of headache and another a method of treating indigestion and we shall all be licensed by the State or admitted to give such treatment to the public.

What about the apothecaries?

They at least get a scientific training. The matter is a serious one for our country and people because the work of the doctors is serious. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) said that he liked the doctors, but I am afraid on their behalf. The presence of a doctor always makes me feel that there is an atmosphere of danger. Not only is their work dangerous but they also handle instruments which may cause danger to the complicated human body. If is always a matter of life or death. Seeing it is so dangerous then is it wise to throw open that profession to any one who has not had a thorough scientific training? Are we not exposing the public to an act similar to giving a dynamite cartiridge to a child to play with? And where shall we land with our universities? If I am permitted to practise without training why should I go to the university? Our young students would be wise in that case to go at once to a mental hospital. That would mean that our universities could shut up as far as the medical schools were concerned, because the right to practise can be obtained without training. It is surely impossible to expect the State to give the right to people of practising without training and to protect them. In such cases the Bill might just as well be withdrawn. It is quite clear that by such a law we should not be protecting the doctors and apothecaries but the public, and to do this it is necessary to admit people who have had a recognized scientific training, and if the recognized scientific training is not sufficient to indemnify the public in this respect then I am convinced that want of training will be infinitely less able to indemnify the public.

The hon. member who has just spoken seems to imply that everyone who is coming under my amendment is a person who is without training or experience. If he reads my amendment he will see that that is not so, and that he is a person who has been trained or qualified. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffatt) also said that there would be a difficulty about the death certificate. That has not been a difficulty in America. The hon. member was on the committee, and knew the evidence given by Mr. Malherbe. They do learn diagnosis in America—symptomatology, which is another word for diagnosis. In Arkansas and California they are permitted to sign death certificates, and also in Florida, but in Maryland they are not.

In Mexico?

That is supposed to be funny. I am not dealing with Mexico, but with the U.S.A.; but I can mention the State of New Mexico, where they are not allowed to practise medicine and surgery, but have a right to their practice. In North Dakota they can sign birth, death and health certificates, and in Tennessee they have all the rights of other practitioners, but are not allowed to sign birth certificates. In Vermont they can sign death certificates. They can do so in most of the States. The difficulty raised by the hon. member for Queenstown is really no difficulty at all.

I do not want to give a silent vote on this amendment which I am going to support, not because I have great faith myself in drugless healing, but because there are a great number of people in this country who are equally as intelligent as any member of this House who are able to judge themselves of the efficacy of treatment of disease, who do resort to these people for healing, and have come to the conclusion that they can get better treatment for themselves from drugless healers than from the doctors. I have quite a number of people in my own constituency, which is not an unintelligent constituency, I may say, who have petitioned me in support of drugless healing, and I think we are suffering from arrogance of intellect in this House and appear to have reached the idea that the last thing has been said about healing when applied by the medical profession. That may be so, but there are a large number of people who, if this Bill passes, are going to be deprived of the treatment they are getting to-day. It is said that these people are not concerned with this Bill at all, and that a special Bill should be introduced, but it is not for us to introduce a new Bill at this stage. I know a gentleman who is known to every member of this honourable House who appealed to me a little while ago because his daughter is being treated by these people from a disease said to be incurable, which doctors had practically given up, and she was getting great aid from a healer. It must be within the experience of many other hon. members. If this clause could be tightened up so that a greater measure of qualifications could be insisted on, I would give my aid to that. If the Minister had any idea that this Bill could have helped him except for some legal technicality he could have gone to the right quarter to assist him on those lines. That has not been done, and it is not my function to introduce an amendment of this sort.

Most of the opposition to this amendment has come from persons who wish to establish some particular monopoly. We have to pass a clause, or we are asked to do so, to make a certain profession as close a preserve as possible. In the legal profession, to protect its economic interests, a very powerful trade union has been created, and the medical profession is doing the same thing. Soon the House will be asked to consider making a close preserve of the architects’ profession, and so on. As a matter of fact, I make bold to say that hon. members who have spoken against the amendment are not concerned with the poor man—a certain amount of money is to be made, and they want the lot. Some years ago I had to go to one of these “wonderful doctors” in whom certain hon. members seem to have such sublime faith. I went to a medical man with regard to some chest trouble, and this doctor told me I was suffering from indigestion. Shortly after I was treated for tuberculosis, and it took me four years to get rid of it. No doctor cured me. You get young doctors just over twenty-one years of age thrown out of the hospital machine, and they are allowed to practise on the community. Another man who has not received such training is called a quack, although he may have practised for many years as a successful drugless healer. When I was at Durban last week I heard of an authentic case. A man had a daughter who had never spoken, and they took her to every doctor in Durban who declared her case to be incurable. One of these so-called quacks, whom they are trying to debar, treated her, and after treatment she was able to speak quite well. At one time Mr. Barker, the bone setter, was persecuted, but recently was honoured by the medical profession. I remember another doctor—T. B. Allinson—a great vegetarian doctor who said—

and taught people how to keep well, just as in China, where, I understand, they have a system under which the doctors are paid only when the people are well. No one here wants to legalize quackery—even medical quackery. What we want to do is to distinguish between quackery and other medical treatment which differs from that of the orthodox medical profession. We want to do something for men who have done, and are doing, good work for the people of this country.

I had heard of so many wonderful cures by these chiropractors that I decided to get some first-hand information about them; so I went to a very eminent man in Natal, and I said I wished to consult him. I had a great pain in my side, and I wanted to get rid of it. He made me strip, and said there was something wrong with my vertebrate column—there were some bones out of place, and he proceeded with both thumbs to push in the bones. After submitting to that for about ten minutes I got up. He said—

I said—

He said I should undertake a course, costing six guineas, and payment was to be in advance. I paid for that experience, and I never went back again. There is nothing wrong with my vertebrate column, and I came to the conclusion that that man was a quack; yet he was said to have effected wonderful cures. For that reason I am going to vote against the hon. member’s amendment.

I think by this time Clause 34 has been thrashed out, and very little new light has been thrown on it by the discussion. I will, therefore, be brief and touch on a few of the points which have been raised. In the first place the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has tried to refute the argument I made this afternoon when I endeavoured to show that the United States Government which, of course, has first-hand knowledge which no Government in the world has of the work of drugless healers, does not attach that value to the work of drugless healers that hon. members suppose everybody in authority in America attaches to it. I told the House that when the war broke out the drugless healers offered their services to the United States army, and that the American Government refused to accept them. That argument was met by the hon. member reading to the House the opinion of the Surgeon-General of the United States army in France. But what he read was merely an appeal that more opportunity should be afforded to the drugless healers. That is not a refutation, but a confirmation of what I said. If drugless healers had been employed by the United States Government in the field, then that appeal by the Surgeon-General would have been unnecessary. Several members have repeated an argument which has been advanced in the House over and over again that if the Bill is passed it will deprive certain persons of rights which they now possess. I will repeat what I have frequently said before, and that is as far as the position of drugless healers is concerned, that will be left altogether unaltered, except in one respect, and that is an improvement of their position. If drugless healers are not allowed to practise legally under the Bill it is simply because that, in the past, under the existing laws, they have not been permitted to practise, and no one who has not been allowed to practise legally before will be permitted to do so under the Bill. Therefore, it is altogether wrong to say that certain persons who had been doing good work and had benefited the public will be deprived of their rights. That is not the case. The position is really this, that what some hon. members want and the drugless healers want is that they shall make, as far as the medical laws are concerned, an entirely new departure, and allow to be registered persons who, up to now, have not been allowed to register. Before Parliament decides that, it should pause, and, as far as I am concerned, I think, if the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) is accepted, then it will be contrary to the most fundamental principles underlying this Bill, and if it is accepted by the House, I think it much better that we should simply stick to the existing medical laws of the country. The argument has been used that what the hon. gentleman really wants is that facilities should be given for the registration, not of inexperienced and untrained people, but of trained men and women. If the hon. member looks at his own amendment he will see that that is not the case. His amendment does not require that everyone who shall be registered under the Bill shall have had a scientific training at all. What he proposes is that if a person shall prove, to the satisfaction of the board, that he is qualified, either by training or merely by experience, that person shall be registered. So the hon. member opens the door to persons to be registered who have had no scientific training at all; in some cases at least he wants people to be registered who have only shown that by experience they know something of that particular method of healing which they practise. There is just one other point—the constitution and working of the board the hon. member proposes under his amendment. Evidently the hon. gentleman and those who supported him do not wish, if the amendment is accepted, for Government to appoint on the board medical practitioners, because the former proceed on the supposition that the latter do not understand these drugless healers, and are hostile to them. Who then must serve on the board? I think it has been stated quite plainly this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) that we must have on the board to register drugless healers, drugless healers themselves. I ask anyone who has read the evidence given by the drugless healers before the select committee which sat a few years ago whether it would be at all possible to have a board representative of the drugless healers which would not be self-destructive. Everyone of these drugless healers believes that his particular system is the one method by which diseases will be cured. Some favour one method of healing such as manipulation of the spine, and they do not believe in water, nor do they attach much value to physical culture, neither do they believe in bio-chemistry. The hydropath believes in his particular system and no other, and we have men like Tromp van Diggelen who believe in their method and no other. The same with men who represent biochemistry. So if you get a board representative of the drugless healers, it will be practically impossible for the board to do any good work, or to carry out in a just manner the registration of drugless healers, because unanimity on that board will be impossible. That is a very practical difficulty against the acceptance of the amendment.

†*Now just a few words about what was said on the amendment on this side of the House. It seems as if there are two principal arguments at the bottom of the reasoning of my hon. friends. The one is that they have little faith in doctors, and if one analyses the speeches and the arguments, they practically amount to this, that, notwithstanding there are so many doctors in the country, the people are always getting sick and are still dying. I fear that if we were to put all the drugless healers, who by some are called quacks, on to the register, the people would continue to get sick and to die. The other argument is that there are a number of these persons, described as quacks, who have done good work, and that it can be proved that this person or the other who was given up by the doctors was cured by a so-called quack. I fear that too much value must not be attached to the one or the other, for, in my opinion, it forms an exception in the practice of the drugless healers. For the very reason that there is so much advertising in connection with the matter, one instance is taken and referred to as if it were the rule. I also have come into close touch with the poor section of our population, and I can assure the House that it has repeatedly come to my notice that persons have not only received no benefits from the so-called quack to whom they have resorted, but that great suffering was caused to such persons quite unnecessarily. There is no doubt of that, and I could mention a number of cases. If there are a few cases which the opponents of the Bill can mention of good work done by quacks, then there are just as many which can be quoted to prove the opposite. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) has asked me a question in connection with better medical attention for people on the countryside, and he said his vote would depend on the reply. I am sorry that the hon. member wants to make the whole matter and his view about the Bill depend on the answer to this one question. I can only repeat what I have said on a former occasion. Country people are undoubtedly deprived of many privileges. It is not only so with regard to medical assistance, but they also lack privileges in the case of education, and many other things which could be mentioned. Everybody will sympathize with them, especially in times of sickness, when it is difficult to get medical help, often because it is too costly. I think that what can be done should be taken in hand. I said recently that in this connection we would try to meet the point, by the Bill of which I have given notice, and which will be on the Order Paper next Monday. The Bill contemplates the legalizing of the calling by the Government upon the district surgeons, where it is desirable to do so, to visit indicated central points in their district at stated times, so that the country folk shall have the opportunity to consult the doctor in his private practice. The Government will put a stipulation in the contract when district surgeons are appointed, that if they attend anybody at the central point, then the fee charged must be as if it had been done at headquarters. In other words, the doctor will not be allowed to demand travelling expenses, and if he leaves the central point to go and visit a patient at a farm, then he must not make the patient pay as if he had come out from his headquarters, but according to the distance from that central point. In this way assistance will be given to the people in the country.

I cannot allow the Minister to continue on that point. He cannot now anticipate the Bill.

As regards fees, I may add that there is an amendment on the Order Paper which will be dealt with later, because it cannot be done now. I may, however, say that I am going a long way in meeting that point as well.

It is usually allowed to the mover to make a reply, and members will not deny me the right under the rules. The Minister has misunderstood what I said. I know nothing about the circumstances under which the American Government is said to have refused these services. I only quoted something said by the Surgeon-General of the American army, and he was in favour of medical freedom. It is one of the things I would like to know more about. The Minister has pointed out something in regard to the drafting of the amendment, and I only wish the Minister would help me as much as I try to help him. I would like some hon. member to move an amendment to take out the words “either, or” and insert “and”, That will remove the difficulty. I cannot see the practical difficulty the Minister sees. Masseurs and nurses meet together to appoint their representative on the board. What, therefore, is wrong in other practitioners doing the same? I very much regret one thing in the Minister’s speech, and that is the threat he held over the House. It is a long Bill, and because of one amendment the Minister holds out the threat that if it is passed he will not go on with the Bill. If he does that, what is the use of us trying to improve any measure? Members from all sides of the House are supporting the amendment. It is not a party measure. We are told, if the amendment is carried, it would make such a fundamental difference that we had better let the law remain as it is. What does that mean except to withdraw the Bill?

I move the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). I should like the Minister to make clear his statement with regard to persons at present practising as drugless healers. I understood him to say those who were legally carrying on the profession would be allowed to continue to do so. In a large class of these cases the men have no particular licence to carry on the profession, but they are not being prosecuted under present conditions. Under Clause 34 the law would bring to an end the practising of these people who are not licensed. If we understand him to say that persons like Mr. Morgan and Mr. Spearman, of Durban, will be allowed to continue to practise, it will afford relief to the people who are at present deriving benefit from them. If the Minister will say that is so, we shall be disposed to revise our attitude after that assurance. I should like to refer to the caricature of the work of some of these practitioners that was put before the House by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). It was unfair. As the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has said, many of these practitioners are educated and qualified men, and do not trade on the ignorance of the people whom they treat. Many of the people treated are equal in knowledge and education, in fact they are far ahead of 95 per cent. of the members of this House. We have the notable case of the Superintendent of Education in Natal, who was considered to be a dying man, and whose case was given up by his own medical men and other medical men. This gentleman, after a course of treatment under one of these drugless healers, is to-day a fit man, and is able to do splendid work for the State. I have also a case of a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. He writes to me as follows—

As the Minister of Labour mentioned, we have been inundated with papers. I have hundreds of documents from people in my constituency bearing testimony to the treatment from these practitioners, and in every case the writers say they have failed to get relief from the medical profession. It is not a case of these practitioners taking work away from the medical profession, but people who find it impossible to get relief and find it necessary to go and get other treatment which in a large number of cases prescribes only a certain kind of dieting or physical culture treatment. I am not one who receives treatment from the drugless healer, but I recognize that a large number of people do, and for us to deny these people their reasonable right of going to men who have built up a large practice is simply asking for trouble. What does the Minister intend to do after the introduction of this Bill if these practitioners continue to practise? Is he going to prosecute them as well as the people who go to them? I can promise him a serious position if he interferes in that drastic way with those people who go for the kind of treatment they prefer. These practitioners are not imposing on ignorance, but are giving full value for what they are paid for. If it is a case of men whose qualifications and experience, under my amendment, are going to be brought under reasonable supervision, and whose registration will only follow on their proving their qualification, I think it will be a good thing. I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander—

I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

Amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick put and agreed to.

Before the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is put, will the Minister reply to the question of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) regarding the position of these people who may practise in future?

In the first place, the Minister or his department does not prosecute in any case. That is the work of the police in the first instance, and of the courts. The hon. member (Mr. Marwick) asked me what I am going to do, whether I am going to prosecute these people or not. My reply is that the Minister does not prosecute, nor does his department.

What will be the position under the law, we are asking?

As far as the position under the law is concerned, I made it clear this afternoon and previously that physical culturists like Tromp van Diggelen, hydropaths and others who carry on their practice, but who do nothing which specially pertains to the calling of a medical practitioner—for instance, they do not diagnoze disease—are not affected by the Bill at all. They have been practising legally before, and they will be able to practise legally in future. But if anyone has been practising illegally before, he will, if he practises, be practising illegally in future, when this Bill becomes law. When anyone has been practising legally before, he will be able to practise legally in future.

That means that, unless the case were diagnozed by a medical man, the osteopath could not give any treatment?

If the case had been diagnozed by a medical practitioner, and that practitioner sends the patient, for instance, to a physical culturist, that is quite in order.

Suppose it has not been diagnozed by a medical man?

If it is not diagnozed by the physical culturist or the drugless healer, then I dare say it is not against the law, but it is dangerous.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander, as amended, put, and Mr. Alexander called for a division.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—24.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Basson, P. N.

Boydell, T.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Fordham, A. C.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Mostert. J. P.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Waterston, R. B.

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

Noes—53.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, H. S.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Struben, R. H.

Swart, O. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

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

Amendment, as amended, accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

I move—

This amendment raises in a more definite form the case of the dental mechanician. The Minister under this Bill is going to make unlawful what is lawful to-day. To-day if a member of the public orders a set of teeth, so long as he takes the impression himself and fits them in his mouth himself he is allowed to go to one of these dental mechanicians. He will not be allowed to do it under this Bill. It has been held in all the provinces that as long as the dental mechanic does not touch the mouth his occupation is lawful. I know I shall be told by some hon. members that I am trying to let loose a number of men who know nothing about dentistry to become dentists. I want to show that it is an economic matter. The dentists are opposing the dental mechanics doing this work because they want the whole of the business in their own hands. I have the case here of one man working as a dental mechanic in Cape Town. Here is a letter from a dentist at Cradock: it will illustrate how proficient these people are—

This is all done by correspondence from a dentist in Cradock to a dental mechanic in Cape Town. Here is another from Cathcart—

These are all letters from dentists. Here is one from Muizenberg—

Another from Smithfield, Orange Free State—

It is all very carefully explained in a letter to the man in Cape Town who does the work. Victoria West—

From Piquetberg—

Here is a letter from Muizenberg from a member of the public—

Another letter is from Humansdorp. One from Ceres says—

A letter from Somerset West states—

We have been told by the Minister and others that dentists can do this work themselves, and yet you find from every part of the country they send to dental mechanicians to do the work. Another letter from Ceres states—

There is a letter from a dentist in Cradock who gives him a very high testimonial when he heard that he was starting his laboratory for making false teeth in Cape Town. They have had some of this work exhibited at the Wembley Exhibition, and an English dentist who saw the work said about this same dental mechanician—

Then there is a letter from this same dentist dated September 4th—

The last letter is dated September 26th, and states—

[Time limit.]

I hope the Minister will not give in and open the door wider for the dental mechanic. The chief argument used here is that in consequence of this Bill so many people will lose their livelihood. There are many dental mechanics in South Africa, but how did most of them come here? Some of them have, of course, been here a long time, but most of them came because today the door is closed in practically all civilized countries for the incompetent dental mechanic. Even in Japan which we regard as a heathen country the door is now closed. In the South American States the door is closed, not to speak of most European countries. And because the door in all these countries has now been closed the Union of South Africa is a good place for that class of person. Now it is proposed that we should continue in the old way. That argument is not sound. During the past fifteen years almost a thousand young South Africans have gone overseas to qualify as dentists, and at the moment more than three hundred young men are qualifying in Europe or America. Is it right towards those men that they should here be eaten up by parasites? We are obliged to protect the dentists who pay a licence to practise. The chief argument used here is that the dentist has a kind of gold mine in his hands. I wonder whether the gold mine is better than that of the ordinary doctor, investor, land surveyor, attorney, advocate or trader?

Or Minister?

I remind the hon. member of the saying “present company excluded.” I deny that the charges which the doctors and dentists in South Africa make today are too high. Competition is so great to-day that if one man charges high another takes his patients. We must not forget also that after the matriculation one has to study for five years to qualify as a dentist. How can we then leave these people to the mercy of the ordinary dental mechanics? The law is not going to persecute them. They can work under a competent dentist. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) argues that the law as it is to-day permits a dental mechanic to carry on his work if he only takes care that the patient himself takes the impression for the set of teeth. What happens? In my constituency such a dental mechanic first made a patient sign a solemn declaration that he did not take an impression of the mouth. He puts the document in his pocket and when the police come he shows it and says that he only inserted the teeth. Is it credible that an ordinary dental mechanic will confine himself to putting in the teeth? The properly qualified dentist can give advice in the matter of the gums and the teeth that are still in the mouth. We know that bad teeth cause many diseases. The unqualified man, however, has no knowledge of inflammations, etc. We must protect the public against the people who without being qualified advertise that they insert teeth. An instance came to my notice where such a person had put in a set of teeth. There were still a few teeth in the mouth. They stopped in because it is much easier to put in a set of teeth in such a case. One of the teeth was bad and not long thereafter the person had to go again to a dentist. The tooth had to be extracted and then the set no longer fitted. In that way it was much more costly for the man than it would have been if he had gone at once to a proper dentist. If we pass the amendment we shall be going backwards like a crab and not forward as every civilized country should do.

It has been repeatedly said that nothing in the Bill interferes with the existing rights of people, but at the end of Clause 35 (3) it says—

At present dental mechanics can carry out their work to the order of any particular member of the public, but the dental mechanics must not take the impression. People, particularly in the country districts, have been taking impressions of their mouths and sending them to the dental mechanics. What I fear is that a number of men who have been doing this work for the last fifteen or twenty years will not be able to obtain employment from the dentists they have been competing against. I have a letter from a dental mechanic who says he has been practising for 14 years, but not at present under the necessary supervision. He graduated in the United States. There are a number of such cases. Will the Minister consider making it possible for such men to be examined and placed on the register? One condition should be that they must have had 10 years’ experience prior to the Act coming into force. Otherwise vested interests will be seriously threatened. They have families to support and if they are now deprived of their means of obtaining a livelihood they will by reason of their age be prevented from taking up other work. Whilst for the future we would like the clause to apply we don’t want to see any existing dental mechanic penalized.

I welcome the speech which has just been made, for it is a very fair statement of the position. Under the clause the Minister takes away a legal right which exists to-day. I would remind hon. members who have listened to the hon. member for Potehefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) that I am not pleading for men who have come into the country for a short time. If a dentist at Victoria West or Cathcart sends his mechanical work to a man in Cape Town the latter is not under the former’s supervision. This shows that the argument that dental mechanics are taking bread out of dentists’ mouths is not a sound one. I will give the House some figures which will astound it. It was stated before the Select Committee that what a dentist pays a dental mechanic four guineas for he charges his patient as much as 35 guineas for. A man from Johannesburg belonging to the Dental Mechanics’ Institute states that you can get a complete set of teeth wholesale for 13s. These teeth are made up by the dental mechanics at Johannesburg and they receive from £1 7s. 6d. to £2 5s. 0d. a set for them. Either a dental mechanic can do his job or he cannot. This is an economic question. It is a fight between the dentist who wants to employ a mechanical dentist to do the work and pocket the greater part of the profit, and the mechanical dentist. Is it right to deprive a man of the benefit of his mechanical skill? Even if the Minister cannot admit that that is the position, he cannot deny that he is taking away a right which now exists under the law. What will take place in the country districts where there are no dental mechanics? The dentists there will send their work to mechanics in Cape Town or some other large centre. As the latter will not do the work under supervision in the proper sense of the term will the law be complied with? It is an economic question of who is going to get the profit legitimately made on the teeth. The man who made them or the man who is exploiting the man who made them. It is a question that might have to be settled by the Wages Board. I do not think it is fair. It is neither right nor just. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment I would like him to meet the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie). I hope they will be allowed to make teeth as long as they do not touch the mouth. I submit there is a strong case for these people.

I am very sorry I am unable to meet the wishes of the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion. Let me just first make a few general remarks on the position. I repeat what I said on a former occasion. You cannot separate the taking of casts of the mouth and the fitting of the denture from the work of the dentist. It is really a work that must be done under the instruction of the dentist simply because the making and fitting of the denture depends very much on the general condition of the mouth, whether there has been sufficient contraction after the fitting of the teeth or not, and only a qualified dentist can judge. It is for the dentist to say whether natural teeth have to be removed or not and how far it is to be done. Generally, therefore, you cannot separate the work of taking the cast of the mouth and the fitting of the denture from the work of a qualified dentist. Let me further describe the position to-day under the existing law. Under the laws as they exist to-day a dental mechanic cannot take a cast of the mouth or fit the denture he has made, so the Bill in that respect does not alter the existing law, and as far as that is concerned no existing rights are affected. The Bill on this particular point is only more specific than the existing law.

What about the patient taking an impression himself and sending it?

The hon. member is right if the dental mechanic confines himself to the work of the making of the denture, not necessarily under the supervision of the dentist, and he can sell the work to anyone he likes. The Bill proposes to take away that right. The dental mechanic can make as many dentures as he likes, but he must do so under the instruction of the dentist. The hon. member objects to the Bill taking that right away and appeals to me to meet the wishes of some dental mechanics and leave them this right. If I do that then the clause which is intended to protect the dentists and improve their position will fail because to-day they are practically unprotected. They cannot make a living, and some of them are thinking of surrending their registration certificates in order to practise just the same as unregistered men so that they can advertise as the dental mechanics do to-day. It will not protect them because the dental mechanics to-day, though prohibited by law from taking casts of the mouth and fixing the dentures, evade the point by making the denture and giving it to the patient and asking him to take the cast and fit it himself If we do not close that opening then all the improvement we want is lost. For that reason it is impossible for me to meet the wishes which have been expressed.

I want to point out that we can do justice to these people if at a later stage the Minister makes it possible for them to be treated on the came basis as the operative dental mechanicians—if he treats them as the others are treated under Clause 36. It would make it possible for them to come in if they came up for examination, and that would meet the case. One cannot press too much upon the Minister the fact that there are a number of men who will be effected by this. I know one case personally of a married man with a family who has been in this country about 20 years and is married to a South African woman. He knows no other work and he will certainly never be engaged by a dentist.

I do not know whether the Minister realises the seriousness of the statement he has made. He really owes an apology to the Committee. When the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) brought forward his amendment the Minister assured the committee that not a single right was being taken away. Now he tells us that there is a right which he is taking away under this Bill. I would like the Minister to give some explanation of that. He is taking away the right of the dentil mechanic, so long as he does not touch the patient’s mouth, to make a set of teeth for anybody who wants one. If a denture goes wrong and a dental mechanician has made that denture, under this clause you cannot even send it to him to have one little thing repaired. The Minister must acknowledge that he made a very serious error there, because many hon. members voted against the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis on the assurance of the Minister that nobody’s rights were being interfered with. Even if the Minister cannot accept my amendment, he should realise that every man who has been making teeth for a number of years, should not have his rights interfered with.

Just on that particular point, let me say that when I replied on the debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) I read Clause 95 over and over again. [Clause re-read.]

It does not include the dental mechanician.

In several of my speeches and on the second reading, certainly, I stated definitely that only in connection with dental mechanics in certain respects were existing rights affected. Surely I concealed nothing from the House as far as that is concerned. As far as the registration of dentists in England is concerned, that point has been repeatedly mentioned in the House during the various discussions that have taken place and members have simply proceeded on the supposition that all vested interests in England at a certain stage of the legislation in connection with the dentists were protected, and that hundreds and thousands of dental mechanics were simply registered as dentists. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that that is not stating the case as it really is. What has been done is that a large number of dental mechanics who have been practising as dentists were allowed to come on to the register but only after examination. That makes a big difference.

I am rather surprised at the explanation of the Minister in connection with this clause, that is, as to the reasons for inserting it. He states definitely that this has been inserted for the purpose of protecting the dentist. But what about the public? Under this clause the public have no protection whatever against excessive charges by the dentist. In criticizing the dentist, I want to make it clear that while not imputing anything dishonourable to dentists as a class, any more than any other class, the fact remains that you have created a monopoly for this class of work for dentists, and you have no protection for the public in connection with the competition of the dental mechanics. The Minister or any other member cannot say that this is an effort to protect the unqualified man or to allow the unqualified man to practise. The arguments used in connection with the last clause cannot be used in connection with this. When we have arguments being brought forward by some hon. members to the effect that this agitation by dental mechanics is simply in the interests of overseas men, the argument of the dental mechanics is entirely in the opposite direction, because most of these mechanics are South African born men. The position under this clause is that the dentist can employ as many unqualified men as he chooses. There is no machinery whatever to safeguard the public against the dentist employing unqualified men to carry out the most important part of dental work. The dentist, once this becomes law, can under this clause employ any man he chooses to carry out the most important part of the work without any qualification whatever. These men, no matter how qualified they may be—and according to the testimonials read by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) they must be very highly qualified—will not be able to do any work for the public unless they receive instructions from the dentist. The clause states that any of these men can be employed, but it must be under the supervision of a dentist. Will the Minister insert that it must be under the personal supervision of the dentist, so that if dentists are going to draw the high fees for this work, they must also supervise every piece of the work? We have seen in the past how these laws work out. What we are doing with all these laws is to create a monopoly for certain privileged classes of the community without any great benefit to the public. We are doing the same with regard to accountants and various other people in this country. It simply means that these people secure the work because the law prohibits anyone from employing anyone else, and they pay people miserable salaries and fees to execute the work for which the public has to pay heavily. We are creating another set of middlemen between the dental mechanic and the dentist. If the Minister is prepared to make it illegal for dental mechanics to carry on the work of dentists he could do so, but why should he in the interests of the dentists themselves make it illegal to carry on the work? The Minister says these dental mechanics have been evading the law, but he has not told us that it is detrimental to the public—he has not put forward one particle of evidence to show that it is, or that the health of the community has suffered in any shape or form. When one compares the price asked by a dental mechanic with that asked for a few minutes’ work by a dentist, one sees that the price asked by the dentist is prohibitive. The whole thing will be left in the hands of the dentists who will decide whether they will sweat these men or not. The dentists will have the opportunity of buying in the cheapest market and will also have an opportunity under this Bill of selling in the dearest. I hope that the Minister will not be adamant on this question. After all, these dental mechanics are asking for a square deal.

I am quite aware that under the British Act some sort of examination had to be undergone in some cases, but the Minister does not suggest that they had to pass the same examination as dentists. A man couldn’t simply say he had been so many years in practise, he had to prove it. I do not suggest that the Minister deliberately deceived the House, but he made a statement which was not justified by the facts. He never said that a right was being taken away from these men. I hope he will reconsider the matter before we come to Clause 95.

I support the remarks of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). We feel that the dental mechanic has not had a square deal in a profession which it has taken him a good deal of time to become efficient in, and has been led to expect to be able to earn the means to live honourably and respectably. Dental mechanics have been driven into the difficult position they now occupy. Some dentists have been willing to take premiums and turn out dental mechanics, and multiply them beyond the country’s requirements. In some cases dentists in good practice have obtained cheap labour, as well as engaging a larger number of apprentices than they really need for mechanical work. I have even known of natives being trained for dental work. I blame also dental mechanics for training natives to do their job; but that is a common fault of workers generally. I hope the Minister will indicate that he is going to see that existing dental mechanics are reasonably protected, and that their means of obtaining a livelihood shall not be taken away from them. I am entirely in sympathy with standing by professional men and all workers, whether tinkers, tailors, candlestick-makers or barristers, and we shall have to legislate in future largely on labour protectionist lines. We have started here with the dentist, but we must see that dental mechanics are allowed to live, and those now in practice be protected during their lifetime in pursuing an occupation which has given bread to their families.

I should also like to make my voice heard in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). The question is whether there is any danger to the public when some one takes an impression of a person’s mouth. I say, no. It is dangerous to be treated by an unqualified person, and if there is anything wrong with the gums or with the roots of the teeth, and it has to be done by a dentist. But there is no danger if the mechanic takes the impression of a person’s mouth. Therefore, I do not see why it is necessary for the dentist to do the work seeing it is, in any case, done under their supervision by dental mechanics. There are many capable young South Africans who have qualified in Scotland or Germany, and can make a set of teeth. Then the Minister should also think a little of the poor people who cannot pay £25 for a set of teeth, and who can get it from that class of person for about £5. We have here to do with a kind of work for which the dental mechanic is trained, and which they can do cheaper than the ordinary dentist. There are many people in my constituency who cannot pay so much, and we are representing poor people as well in this House. I hope hon. members will think of that. The Bill provides that if there is anything wrong with the mouth then a dentist alone may treat it. Leave, however, the putting in of the plate and the making of a set of teeth to the mechanic.

I must say that I am surprised at the hon. member’s speech. He argues as if there is no danger in putting in a plate, and as if it does not depend on other work which has to be done to the mouth. Can a dental mechanic properly examine whether there is anything wrong with the jaw?

That the dentist must do. It is quite clear.

The hon. member has spoken about the poor. It is his duty to protect them so that they should only go to properly qualified professional men who can completely finish the work in the mouth and judge whether the set of teeth will suit the jaw, and whether everything is in order. We learn more and more that health is, to a great extent, dependent on the state of the teeth. How then can we leave the work to someone who has not even got the knowledge about the material he is using, a material which, in certain circumstances, may poison one’s mouth? Very good work is done for the poor people in the dental clinic at Cape Town. The qualified dentist is not a person who despises the poor, but the Bill must protect the poor people, so that they are only treated by experienced people. I hope the House will adopt the amendment.

One hesitates to speak about a matter on which you are not fully informed, but it seems to me that the rule has so often been broken to-day that it will not be considered a great sin for me to say something. It is clear that in the debate on this clause certain persons for whom protection is demanded are more particularly being considered. It appeared from the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) that he would very much like some of his acquaintances, if not for personal reasons then still acquaintances who represent a certain class, to be protected. When we have to do with a matter in our private capacity, then we are entitled to consider our friends, but where we have to protect great interests as representatives of the people we should take a wider view. The question is how far we can permit the dental mechanic to measure the mouth and to fit and put in the teeth. The question is solved in the Bill, and that is the portion which it is proposed to delete. The great danger connected therewith is that these people have not, at any rate in the past, shown that they have knowledge of the formation of the mouth and of the theory of their work. That is not only the experience of South Africa, but the experience of the important commission which was appointed in England in 1919. The commission says in its report that steps should immediately be taken to bring dentistry to the notice of the public as one of the chief means of avoiding bad health, and that all possible steps should be taken to instruct the public on the value of teeth. It was certainly at that time that considerably more knowledge about the influence of bad teeth was obtained. In the streets of the great cities we often see particularly children and young people with pale faces, and it is usually ascribed to bad nourishment. The cause, however, in many cases is that the food is not properly masticated, and that a certain quantity of poison goes into the stomach on account of the state of the mouth. That is to a great extent the cause of anaemia, In the past this has not been sufficiently borne in mind by the dental mechanics, and that will continue in the future. It is a matter of very great importance to us, because besides anaemia, we have the malformation of bones and arms and various forms of rheumatism as consequences of poisoning from the mouth. We see many people in bad health, and it is attributable, in many cases to bad teeth. Now it is stated that we must permit the dental mechanics to do the work because they do it so much cheaper than the dentists. I am not certain that that is a well-grounded argument. I have a letter in my hand from a friend—no, not a friend, because he is not personally known to me, although I know his family name well— who took his B.A. degree here before he went overseas to study dentistry. He writes—

I have every reason to believe that the letter states the position correctly. I think the public of South Africa owe special thanks and acknowledgment for the services the dentists are rendering to our youths, not only in Cape Town, but also in the smaller villages and towns. It is not only for the work which is done gratis, but also for the education of people so that they can devote proper attention to their patients. I therefore think that we should in any case pass the clause as drawn. The public health demands it.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has missed the point. If he had listened he would have heard that there is not one of us who does not appreciate the work of dentists. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) hit the nail on the head in speaking about our indebtedness to them. We feel that the matter is of great importance. The hon. member, however, mentioned a man with the B.A. degree who had thereafter studied for four years to become a dentist. I, however, know of dental mechanics who have passed the matriculation and gone for three years to study in Germany, and after passing their examination as dental mechanics have done good work and are still doing so. I am not thinking of a particular individual, but of dental mechanics in general. The hon. member for Caledon must therefore not speak of illiterate people. Mention has been made of the scientific way of examining the mouth, and I also know what a bad influence the teeth exercise on the constitution and the brain. No one will deny that, but I want the men and young men of our people who have been doing the work for a time, and have proved their ability in the past, to be allowed to continue. I do not wish that the man who has not passed an examination should be admitted, but merely that the man who has already been admitted should be protected. No one will deny that the dentists have done good work for our children, and we are thankful to them for it, but I also desire that we should protect the people whose future is in this country, and who have for years past performed their work as dental mechanics in an efficient manner. If that is not done, then they will lose their position and become poor whites The hon. member for Hopetown also read a letter which said that dentists do not charge too much, and I am pleased to hear that that is so in that locality. I can, however, assure the House that there are dentists who charge very much, and I am out to protect the poor man. We want to have the best scientific enquiry on behalf of our children, hut we also want the people who have done their work efficiently to be allowed to make a living. Therefore, I ask the Minister not to allow a Bill to pass which will deprive a man of the work which he has done for years in a capable manner.

I am glad I have now found the passage to which I have referred. It is on page 24 of the Select Committee’s report for 1923. The Minister will see a large number of men in England were admitted without examination. A witness mentions 10,000 as having been put on the register, but a more conservative estimate gives it at 7,000 to 8,000. A witness states—

I do hope that between now and the time the Bill will come on again the Minister will go into this and he will show some earnest of not ruthlessly taking away rights held at the present moment. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has said much in praise of the dentists. I have the greatest respect for the South African dentist and doctor, but that does not prevent me from seeing other people also have their rights. The hon. member seems to think it is a competition between the dentist and the dental mechanic as to their being good men, but has he not seen from the letters I have read that all these dentists use the dental mechanics? There is one other thing. I hope the Minister will go into it when he is considering this clause. This has been brought to my attention by a doctor. I have had a letter from a doctor in the Cape Province pointing out that under the Bill his right to do prosthetic dental work will be taken away from him to his loss and to the inconvenience of the town in which he practises, for there is no dentist there. There are other doctors, especially in country districts, who think their rights will be interfered with under this clause. Will the Minister also consider the question of repairs to dentures? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) have a wonderful way of showing their appreciation of the profession. Would the hon. member for Hanover Street take it as a compliment if I went to his office and told him that I would prefer that his clerk did my legal work? For in effect they say that they think the dentist’s apprentice can do the work better than the dentist. Would the hon. member for Pretoria (South) feel flattered if I said I did not care to go to his church but preferred to go to the bottom of Adderley Street? The hon. member appreciates that bad teeth affect the brain. I am sorry for the teeth of the past! When an hon. member gets up and talks stuff of that description I get hopeless with regard to the progress which is taking place in the country, when people, supposed to be men of light and leading, want to put us back where England was in 1878. The condition was then so bad that it took England 40 years to find out they were being treated by men who were practising dentistry without qualification or training.