announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Terreblanche from service on the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements; and Mr. de Waal from service on the Select Committee on the Library of Parliament.

I move—

I would like to ask the hon. member who has just moved that we go into committee on this first report of the committee for the present session, what has become of the third and fourth reports of last session which, have not yet reached this House.

We cannot go into that question now. The hon. member must raise it on another occasion.

I put a question to the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) on his motion to resolve into committee as to what had become of the reports from last session which had not yet been dealt with. We are going on with the first report of the committee for the present session. What are we to do in regard to the reports that have not yet been considered, and which were on the Order Paper for the last day of last session.

The hon. member is not allowed to discuss the matter. I will permit him to put a question to the Minister if he pleases.

I would like to ask the Chairman of the committee what is to happen in regard to the reports from the committee which were waiting to be submitted to this House when the House rose last session and which have not yet been considered. These appear to have been skipped, and now we are on this first report of the committee for this session, and the third and fourth reports of last session are not being considered. What is to become of them?

Will we not get an answer to that question which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has asked the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter).

I cannot insist upon this.

Perhaps the question could be properly addressed to the Minister of Native Affairs. Perhaps he could tell us what has become of these two reports of last session.

I am very sorry, but I do not know what these reports are, but if the hon. member will put that question at any time in the ordinary course, I shall be very glad to answer it.

I see the committee began at 10.30 and by 11.5 38 cases had been gone into. I do not see a single case debated here. I think we ought to have an opportunity of getting further information and reading more about these matters. On page 2 of the report they proceeded to elect a committee. They began their deliberations at 10.30 and they concluded at 11.5, and 38 grants were made in that short time. They may be all right; we cannot tell; but we have no report as to what the deliberations were about. With all due respect to the committee, they might have given the House a little more information.

May I just say that the grant only refers to the trading areas. It is a formal matter. The grants were made years ago, some 15 to 20 years ago. The areas have now been surveyed, and the grants are formally being confirmed by Parliament.

I observe that the total number of cases before the select committee was 38, and I see that 34 recommendations are made. Might we know why the four other cases have not been approved? I move—

All the recommendations were discussed by the select committee and passed. I think it is unnecessary to accept the motion for adjournment.

I permitted the question to be put, but it was not relevant to the recommendation.

I see that the great majority of the recommendations are in respect of trading sites. I would like to know on what basis the committee make these recommendations, and what investigation they have made in connection with these grants.

For the information of the House and in order to clarify the position in connection with the granting of trading and other sites, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks as I happen to be a member of the select committee that dealt with these grants. The procedure followed in such case is as follows: In the original instance the application by the trader is referred to the resident magistrate of the district, the chief magistrate and also the Native District Council where such bodies exist. These officers and the native body make certain recommendations which are invariably accepted by the committee. These recommendations together with such other information as may be necessary are placed before members of the committee several days before it sits and are carefully scrutinized by members. Each individual application is considered on its merits and in the event of any member of the committee requiring enlightenment or further information such is always provided by the officials concerned. The House appears to think that we have rushed matters but I can give the assurance that the Committee acted in accordance with recommendations made by Select Committee on Native Affairs some years back in respect to such grants and that there was no undue haste in making the recommendations now before the House, most of which are purely formal.

You have (22) to (34) inclusive grouped under one heading (22). No. (22) refers you to schedule (C), but when you turn that up you find it is a formal certificate of occupation. This is a haphazard way of doing the work. It is very careless. We are at least entitled to have a full explanation in this report as to what these grants refer to, and we cannot get it from this report.

It is a great pity the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has not read the report; if he had he would see that it is schedule B and not C that is referred to.

For the information of the hon. member I will read it.

We are now on Recommendation No. (26)

In No. (22) reference is made to cases (22) to (34) inclusive.

The hon. member is not in order in discussing No. (22) now.

If the hon. member looks at annexure 2, at the back of the volume, he will see why the grants were made and to which churches.

I am not discussing No. 22 nor No. 23.

As the hon. member will notice, No. (26) deals with case (38).

I wish to call the Minister’s attention to the fact that harbour development at Port Elizabeth could be speeded up to a certain extent. I would urge upon him to take into serious consideration the early construction of the north arm in the proposed scheme. At present the intention is, I gather, to extend the south arm, the main breakwater works, and only when that is complete to proceed with the construction of the other arm. I would submit to the Minister that the simultaneous construction of these two arms ought to be undertaken. The north arm is where, I presume, the cold storage will be erected for Port Elizabeth, and if the construction of that arm could be undertaken now it would give a certain amount of shipping berths which could be put into use, and the railway administration would be earning revenue. There is no question about it, something urgently is required for the provision of cold storage at Port Elizabeth, as the fruit traffic at present is being carried on under a severe handicap. The officials are doing the best they can under the circumstances. I am aware that insulated lighters have been provided which carry the fruit to the ships and ameliorate the position to some extent, but the fruit has to be placed in the sheds for storage before shipment, where it may be considerably damaged before it gets on board owing to variations of temperature. I have seen a consignment of citrus fruit in an extremely bad condition for shipment owing to overheating. I want to reinforce in the strongest way possible, what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth said, with regard to the provision of cold storage at Port Elizabeth. The fruit industry of the Eastern Province is growing rapidly, and in the Sunday’s River Valley it is expected that there will be about four times the quantity in the next year or two of the quantity we have to-day. We have the Fish River Valley with trees in bearing and with large new planting going on; the Bathurst district and others with extensive production of citrus, pines and deciduous fruits. There is every reason for the provision of proper cold storage at Port Elizabeth with as little delay as possible.

Attempts have been made by hon. members on the Government benches to saddle the cost of the increased expenditure on the electrification of the Natal line on the shoulders of the late Minister of Railways. They base their contention on one portion of the evidence contained in a book running to nearly 700 pages. In 1920 the House agreed to the electrification of the Cape Town-Simonstown line and the Durban-Maritzburg line. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) took office naturally he enquired into these schemes, and he found that it was proposed to double the existing steam line from Glencoe to Maritzburg and to electrify the line from Maritzburg to Durban. He discovered, however, that it would be useless to electrify the Maritzburg-Durban section unless he could feed it. It is necessary to emphasize that the Select Committee on Railways, on which Government members were in a majority, could pass any resolution it wished. This is what the committee did agree to—

This is all after the change.

You signed this report and you can’t get away from it. The original scheme of electrification was for 244 miles, but the distance carried out was 309 miles, thus accounting for a good deal of extra expenditure. I should like, in the interests of inland consumers and in the hope of securing a reduction in the cost of living to support the appeal which has been made for reduced railway rates. The Auditor-General in his report, refers to the extra cost necessitated by the employment of white labour where cheaper labour could have been employed. On page 19 of this report the average increased cost on 33 articles was 42 per cent., of these eleven directly influence the cost of living. I would like to know how much the increase in railway rates is caused by the expense of employing civilized labour. We were told a fortnight ago by the Minister that in order to avoid breakages on the line the Pretoria merchants should rail their goods at a higher rate. Surely the Minister must know that these increased costs would be passed on to the consumer in just the same way as the cost of breakages is passed on. The Pretoria Chamber of Commerce asked that greater care should be exercised in handling goods, and it would be interesting to know how much of the additional cost of railage is due to the bad handling of goods at Pretoria by so-called civilized labour. The Select Committee on Railways has in their report, 1925, asked the Government to enquire into the conduct of the Renewals Fund. The Government has promised such a departmental enquiry for the last two years, but so far nothing has been done. The contributions to Renewals Fund in 1926 were £1,700,000, the expenditure being £1,248,000. The credit balance in the fund was £1,500,000. Up to the end of 1926 there has been spent on rolling stock £14,182,000, and stock withdrawn from service is valued at £1,540,000. Last year the department spent on rolling stock £157,000, and actually withdrew from service rolling stock to the value of only £23,000. This must have some effect on the high rates, considering that the money might have been obtained from capital account. I hope the Minister will not agree to the suggestion to discontinue the publication of branch line statistics. In nearly every instance in which information has been given to the House, it transpires that there has been a deficit on the branch lines. If you take the year 1924 there was a loss on the branch lines of £384,460. In 1925 the loss was £470,116. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) said the Railway Board did not have the information. The South Africa Act lays down that the Railway Board should enquire into these things, and we found they simply took the information supplied by some officer and did not get the information they should. Take one instance. The report by the Auditor-General on the Matubatuba railway, where the estimated cost was £419,716, and the actual cost £631,359, a difference between the estimated and actual cost of £211,643. If these statistics, are not published how can the House have any control over the expenditure of these lines, and the result will be we shall go on building these branch lines and have increasing deficits each year. The railways must be run on business lines, and as the loss is not paid out of consolidated revenue but by the railway users, I hope the Minister will see that the House is in full possession of all the statistics as to receipts and expenditure on all branch lines.

His Majesty’s Opposition has shown alertness generally and in their criticizm of railway administration. Let me congratulate them. Hon. members opposite know so well political hiding places that they know just where to look for others. Unfortunately for them the chief weapon in their armament is the boomerang and it returns with tenfold effect on their own side. It is perfectly fair to offer meticulous criticizm of the railway administration, one of the highest types of applied socialism, but they should recognize what the exact position is. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) who makes his annual speech on railway matters, and is quite qualified to do so, does the best he can do for his party with its unfortunately record regarding railways, but in comparisons he raised between certain years he had conveniently forgotten the difficulties there are in changing over a policy. He has the audacity to take in the financial year (1924-’25 as if the present Government were then responsible. This Government only came into power in the latter part of 1924 and the full programme was arranged by the other side, orders having been placed overseas, and we came in to face the deliberate policy of starvation on this side and importation from the other.

What about 1926?

I am coming to that. The first thing that was noticeable on the railways in1924 was the inadequacy of workshop equipment, of appliances generally; stores and other things required. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) had gone in for material from the Continent and America, or anywhere else, he could get it for the least money. I can speak of the results from personal knowledge of workshops in Pretoria. It took two and a half years to the present time to pull up arreas of requisite machinery. We had obsolete machinery dating from the time of Z.A.S.M., and so inefficiently equipped were the shops that there was not enough machinery to tackle the work, men having to wait by for their turn at a machine. Whatever his party may have in store for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) in the future, apart from scrapping him, there is one thing he can never do; he will never run the railways again, because he could not get the goodwill of the staff, and without that he could not ensure efficiency. Let me take stores alone, and I can assure this House, to my knowledge, in a central place like Pretoria the coach making establishment had to send out and search the stores to get materials that should always be in stock. Everything was depleted and there was no possibility of carrying on the work successfully. This Government has a preference for making our own coaches but how can they do so until they overtake arrears. Take the store stock at the 25th December, 1925, compared with 1924, they had to add £400,000 worth of stores to cope with what was wanted. Meantime rolling stock had to be imported and yet the hon. member for Uitenhage comes forward with comparisons thinking they are in favour of the previous administration. We welcome comparisons because they show how far the previous administration was behind. Read the report of the general manager of railways and you will find, when he asked for 5 millions’ worth of rolling stock, the hon. memberfor Cape Town (Central) cut him down to about 2 millions. This was admittedly so. Not only had the rolling stock to be accepted that was already ordered but the workshops being so badly equipped further orders had to be sent overseas for more coaches and trucks. That stands out as one of the examples of the policy of starvation adopted with regard to workshops and stores. There has been an immense amount of overtime worked and criticizm has been properly directed to the increase but it was necessitated by an attempt to overtake the repair work which had also been severely restricted. It has taken nearly two years to overtake arrears of repair work on the rolling stock and it is not yet finished. It must not be supposed that the workmen are delighted to have excessive overtime. I do not say that some railwaymen do not welcome overtime, but they get tired of working five or six nights a week. It is, however, absolutely essential for them to strive in this way in order to get straight with behindhand work. The criticizm which has been offered takes no account of the enormous amount of arrears and ill-equipped workshops. We have had the same old attack on the new white labour policy; this terrible policy of extravagance that the hon. member for (Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) waxes so strong about. Of course I forgive him, he depends almost entirely upon the native and coloured vote, and, therefore, of course, our white labour policy must he decried. But he remains insensible to the fact that as the world moves on the world is discovering one thing in particular, that is that the higher the class of employees or workers, the higher the amount paid them, the better the conditions generally are. The hon. member quite fails to notice anything more than that there has been a substantial increase in the total cost of running the railways. But what is lost on the roundabouts is picked up on the swings. The Minister of Finance is delighted, because of an unexpected surplus derived from an increased purchasing power in this country, and he is a million up on his estimated customs duties. It will appear when the Estimates are before the House and the Budget speech has been made, that increases in customs duties are not due to particular articles, or on luxuries, but the increase is spread over the whole of the customs revenue, and points unmistakeably to the fact that our white labour policy is a policy of development which enables us to have far more revenue, far greater expenditure, and a higher standard of existence. Members of the S.A. party can only see figures; of course, they are bound hand and foot to their financiers; but there is a human element behind it all, with higher and higher figures in a prosperous country, and lower and lower figures in a non-prosperous country. Had hon. members opposite been in power a few years longer, we would have seen ships taking white people out of this country and leaving it to the blacks. I advise them to take a few modern books out of our library, and read of the world movement in regard to the higher productive power and the higher purchasing power which follows; and that it is better to have a higher class labour than a lower class labour even from that material point of view. I despair of ever being able to bring such conviction to hon. members opposite. Before they face another fatal election—

You will have completely disappeared before we face another election.

Perhaps, but meanwhile hon. members opposite can do a little reading to find out what the world is doing by increased consumption and not by decreased expenditure and decreased costs of production. I desire to ask the Minister of Railways to devote his attention a little to some things which would lead to greater satisfaction in railway service. I would first touch, with great trepidation, on the delicate question of bilingualism. There is a great misunderstanding in regard to it in that old hands on the railway, quite efficient men in the work where bilingualism is now being insisted upon, would gladly learn Afrikaans if they could only see how it could be done. They would be delighted to acquire a knowledge of the second language, and I ask my hon. friend to support us in asking that greater facilities should be found for the learning of Afrikaans. Where there have been evening classes adults have gone to them, stumbled over the pronunciation of a language new to them, not their mother tongue, and been laughed at by juniors, even small boys who are attending the classes. Put it to yourselves how keenly such a thing is felt, but they have no other opportunity. I ask the Minister, whether, in conjunction with the Education Department, he cannot have bilingual classes for adults. Dutch also suffer in regard to learning the English language. Unfortunately for many men who have been long in the service, the guillotine has fallen and they cannot go from one grade to another unless they can prove that they are bilingual. They are stopped in their promotion, and we get men with families kept on a low salary who have looked forward to promotion in due course, and who are unfortunately being stopped in a grade with low pay. Many are eager to learn Afrikaans or English and get on, but unfortunately they are turned down again and again in the examinations. It seems to me that a department, looking to the welfare of all sections of the service should do its best to see that those who wish to qualify for advancement into a higher grade, get that opportunity; widespread opportunity, easily obtainable. When the Estimates come on, there are other matters which I will bring forward. I associate myself with hon. members who have spoken from these benches claiming that faith must be kept with the railway staff right through, as well as the civil service generally. We cannot ignore the fact that there have been increased railway returns, and a surplus which the men have earned. Reduction of rates to the general community is, they say, at their expense, but I do not think that the general community want reductions at the cost of a discontented staff. If we were to go to the consumer and say, “Will you keep faith with these servants of the people, and give them back what was taken from them?” the community, I am sure, would answer, “Yes.” Until these men are dealt fairly with, until they have restored what was taken from them, until they feel that faith has been kept with them, you will not get one hundred per cent. service, try as you will. Take a country stationmaster. You are held up for trucks; there is ever a shortage of trucks. If he feels that he has a grievance is he going to get up in the middle of the night and arrange that the trucks shall be taken away by a passing train? You lose more than 10 per cent. of efficiency by this absurd economy introduced by hon. members opposite.

Is that the attitude which the railway service have?

I am giving a liberal interpretation of the practical position. You will find it better even with your native servants to treat them justly and liberally.

You are giving a libellous interpretation to it.

Take the services generally, unless we have contented service we are losing at least 10 per cent. of efficiency, not an economy by any means. That 10 per cent of higher rather than lower efficiency is worth having, and I put it again to the Minister that faith should be kept with these public servants.

I want to invite the Minister’s attention to the insufficiency of waiting rooms for Europeans on the branch lines. Europeans use the railways much more than natives, and yet the natives have superior waiting room accommodation at many stations. The natives there have the same right, and no white man will wait in a room together with natives. Nor will they go into one when the natives have gone out, because these people usually leave their traces in the form of vermin and smell. The Minister will have to arrange to make an alteration. He must also see that natives get cover in houses in which white people will not subsequently be asked to live. No white labourers ought to be put into such buildings. They already leave much to be desired. There are many complaints about the condition of the railway houses. I should like the Minister to personally take a little journey to Klaver and to inspect the little huts. There are few parts of our country that are so warm in summer as the area between Moravia station and Klaver. I was once at Moravia when the thermometer was at 113 in the shade and Klaver is known to be just as warm. The buildings ought all to be of stone. The former Minister of Railways appreciated the desirability of having all the buildings of stone, and promised to replace the wood and iron buildings by stone ones. He partially fulfilled that promise. I hope the present Minister will see to it that not one iron building is left standing. They must all be removed. The Klaver line pays, so the excuse of a shortage of money cannot be made in this case. On one occasion a sick woman in one of the wooden huts had to be carried outside because it was intolerably warm inside. Such things ought to be made impossible. I hope the Minister will make himself personally acquainted with the conditions and will see that the just grievances of the labourers are removed.

I do not intend to go into railway finances generally because I think that can be left until the Budget debate comes on, but I would like to ask the Minister where we are to expect to find the surplus to which he looked forward so confidently when he introduced the Additional Estimates. I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that as far as one can tell from the published returns, the progressive increase in expenditure is going gaily on and the revenue is slowly sinking. The latest bulletin published by the general manager shows that from the 1st April last year to the end of December the earnings showed a decrease of £28,618 and the expenditure was up by £476,682. That I think is a very serious figure, and without going into the whole question of railway finance, I think the Minister might give us when he replies some indication of what he understands by these figures and whether we are going to continue to show this progressive increase of expenditure with a dropping revenue. We had an appeal from an unexpected quarter the other day for a reduction in railway rates, and I think that reduction is most urgently required in this country. A reduction in railway rates does not mean that the service is to be robbed of the benefit of the producer or the merchant. That is a point of view we hear from the Labour benches, and it is in my view a fundamentally wrong idea. A reduction in railway rates is urgently required in the general interests of the productive capacities of the country by the farmers, by the industrialists and by the coal mines and by the whole mining industry. It will repay itself over and over again and reflect on the general employment of the country. But with these figures before us I see no prospect of a reduction in rates. Why I really got up was to deal with a matter that was raised when this debate was last before the House, and that is the attempt that was made by hon. members on the other side to launch an attack on the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—as if he was the man who had been responsible—for the very large excess in the expenditure on the electrification in Natal over the estimates. He was saddled with the whole responsibility for this, I think most unfairly and most unjustly. The whole thing was entirely uncalled for. When the question was raised by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) he quite frankly said that he made no attack on the present Government. Everyone knows that you cannot found on what has happened any charge against the present Minister; he cannot possibly be held responsible for it, but it was immediately taken up by members on the other side, who ought to know better, as an opportunity for making an attack on the late Minister of Railways, as if he were responsible for it. This attack was supported by extracts from the evidence given before the select committee that sat last year, extracts carefully selected so as not to tell the whole story, but only to tell part of the story.

Half the story was bad enough.

Yes, it was, but the other half puts it entirely right, and that is why it was not quoted. What was the position? Hon. members, I think, mostly know it. The position was that estimates had been got out, or were being got out, for electrifying the line from Maritzburg to Durban. When the late Minister came to look into the question, he saw that the critical position in Natal was not between Maritzburg and Durban. The line between Maritzburg and Durban had been practically doubled, and was quite sufficient to carry all the traffic that could reasonably be expected for years to come, but the critical position was north of Maritzburg, and there you had to do something. Electrifying the line between Maritzburg and Durban might have been a nice thing, but it was a luxury, but the other thing was a necessity. It was one of two things— you had either to double the line, if you were going to continue to use steam, between Maritz-burg and Glencoe, or you had to electrify it— and what my hon. friend decided to do was— seeing the amount of capital moneys at the disposal of the Government was limited—to drop electrification between Maritzburg and Durban and to electrify between Maritzburg and Glencoe. What I complain about in those who read the extracts the other day is that they try to make out that my hon. friend had come to this decision and thrust it upon the country without the approval of the general manager or the Railway Board or anybody else.

What did he tell the Natal merchants when he was in Durban?

I do not know what he told them, but I have no doubt it was the truth whatever it was. If he told them that he had decided to abandon the electrification from Maritzburg to Durban, what harm was there in that? Assuming he did tell them that, it only represented the conclusion he had come to as a business man on looking into the facts of the situation, and that conclusion is supported to-day by everyone qualified to speak. The general manager says the same thing in this very book, in the evidence he gave. He said—

He says the matter was brought before the Railway Board after he had been asked to report on it. He reported favourably on it, and he supports it now.

A double line first is what every technical man says.

We can only do one thing at a time, and the general manager does not say that, as far as I know. He says that the original idea was to double the line and use steam.

It is Hobson’s choice.

How does the hon. member come to that conclusion? The general manager does not say it is a case of Hobson’s choice.

He says the decision was taken without consultation of himself or the Railway Board.

What he says is that the Minister told somebody in Natal that he was not going on with the Durban-Maritzburg electrification, and that came as a surprise to him. He asked the general manager to go into it and report to the board, and the general manager, according to his own evidence, did so and reported favourably. He said, in his evidence—

He also said it involved the preparation of estimates in a short time.

He had to concur or resign.

That was not done under the late Government. He also said, in his evidence—

Anyhow, my point is this—the decision come to by the then Minister was a sound one, and it may have involved the preparation of estimates in a short time. To pillory him and say that he was responsible for the excessive expenditure is a political move unworthy even of hon. members opposite. Why should we go and take it as if this electrification in Natal was a failure, or a colossal blunder into which we were led by the late Government? The evidence shows that it is going to be a success. No one could expect that a huge thing like this—the first thing of its sort in this country—would be run without mistakes and failures, but on the evidence we have before us it shows that, as far as we can learn, the electrification scheme is going to run successfully. It is true it cost more than was estimated. I do not think the then Minister can be blamed for that. We have had the experience in the Railway Department and elsewhere that very often estimates by engineers—South African as well as overseas engineers—for large works of this kind have been grossly exceeded. I can give a few instances from the Auditor-General’s report on the railways last year. The estimate for the Matubatuba line, which was £419,000, has now increased to £631,000, about 50 per cent., largely because the engineers failed to make allowance for floods, and did not design the bridges high enough. Take the Colenso power station dam, it was found that, owing to the amount of silt and debris brought down by the Tugela River, the intake had to be entirely remodelled, and that was done under a committee of South African engineers.

Was the original intake planned by the Administration’s engineers?

No, the original intake was planned under the supervision of the consulting engineers, who had no experience of the sort of things to be dealt with when the Tugela was in flood, and it was remodelled by a committee of South African engineers, whose estimate was £84,000, but it cost £118,000. Another thing hon. members might look at is what has happened with regard to the grain elevators. The Auditor-General reports, up to 31st March, last year, that the estimated expenditure on the grain elevator scheme was £2,579,000, including all the muddle at Durban, and the wasted expenses in connection with that, but the latest estimate, he says, is £2,970,000. He calls attention to country elevators which were estimated to cost £12,000, but are now estimated to cost £18,000, and may cost possibly £21,000. It all goes to show that estimates in this country cannot be relied upon on works of great magnitude. For some reason I am not qualified to discuss, we find again and again enormous excesses when the work comes to be carried out. But to attempt to saddle the responsibility for the excess on the Natal electrification scheme on the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is ludicrous. Another point I want to mention is the question of branch line statistics. The Auditor-General calls attention to the fact that the Administration wishes to discontinue the publication of these statistics, and the matter was referred to the Select Committee on Railway Affairs, which, by a majority, decided against continuing the publication of these statistics. Two reasons were given. The first reason is the cost. It is seriously stated by the Railway Administration that it costs them £12,000 a year to deal with these statistics in the head office. It is admitted that all the returns from stations that they now get would have to be got in any case. I would like to have a chance of examining these figures, and I would ask the Minister to go very carefully into the estimate and the ground on which it is based. I cannot help suspecting that all the sweepings have been brought in to swell that little heap. The other reason given is that there is a certain element of arbitrariness in the branch line statistics, because you have to load them in respect of the traffic which the branch lines bring to the main line. I regard that argument as worthless, because whatever the loading may be, it will be an agreed element, of 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., and this could be applied in checking these branch line statistics. The advantages of having these figures is when Parliament is asked to build branch lines—and I notice we have on the Order Paper requests for 42 to be built—Parliament and the public would have some idea of what these branch lines are doing.

We will defer the decision for some time.

I am glad to hear it. Some people hold, I know, that you should always build branch lines whether they pay or not, because they open up the country. I admit that there are many parts of the country which cannot go ahead until they have a modern form of transport, but it does not follow that you have to build a railway line. There are other means of communication. Building a railway line means a large expenditure of capital, and if the line does not pay, that amount of capital is largely lost. When Parliament has to decide whether to build a branch line or whether to give motor transport, surely it is important to know the actual results of branch line working and to have the actual results before it. I do hope the Administration is going to change its mind about these branch line statistics and give us the fullest information on the matter— not only for the information of Parliament, but public opinion. The expense will be more than justified. On the general question I am sorry I cannot share the optimism of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), that it does not matter how high you put the expenditure of the railways, it all comes back to the Minister of Finance in his general Budget. Even if it is true, it does not seem to me very satisfactory for those who live inland and use the railways. High wages, with which I agree, must be linked up in some way with the productive capacity of the men who are being paid these high wages. The Minister ought to consider that he has a duty, not only to the people who work on the railway, but also to those who use the railway, and if he is in a position to give cheap railway transport in a manner that will assist agriculture and industries to develop right throughout the country, he is doing more to remedy unemployment and inadequate employment than by putting up wages to an extent which means the carrying and maintaining of high railway rates. I do not think it would be any satisfaction to us, who use the railways up-country, if the Minister of Finance has to reap a surplus at the expense of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. I am quite sure that the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) as to the effect on the railway servants of their not being able to obtain an eight-hours’ day and the non-restoration of the 10 per cent. cut in wages would lead to disloyal and unwilling service, does not represent the feelings of the railwaymen themselves. His claim lies more against his own Government than against us; when he talks about unfulfilled promises made to these people, he is using a boomerang which will be directed against his own friends. There are inequalities and anomalies in the railway service which may require rectification, and there always will be anomalies and inequalities, but the Minister, if he holds the balance evenly between the consumers and the men who work for them, can depend on the loyal service of his employees.

The last speaker began by pleading for a reduction of railway rates and ended by pleading for cheaper fares, Everybody in this House would be glad to see cheaper fares, but the impression made by the last speaker was that this Government has never done anything in that line, whereas it has done more in the way of reductions than the previous Government did. The only thing we object to is reducing rates at the expense of the poor of the country and by the help of slave labour. In regard to the electrification of the Natal line, I don’t care very much for the quibbling about the responsibility of the Minister or consulting engineers, but the fact remains that the previous Government committed the country to this enormous expenditure, which I don’t think can possibly be justified in a country which is still to a large extent a native and coolie reserve. The Government have been very severely criticized because it has passed by England and bought railway stock from other countries. This action has been attributed to anti-British or racial feeling on this side of the House.

Which does not exist?

Certainly I don’t think it exists in this case. The fact is, and it is admitted by leading economists in England, that the star of England’s industrial and commercial supremacy is rapidly careering to the west. I know this is a very painful fact, but we can’t get away from facts, and I think that is the explanation why we, like the previous Government, have been forced, although reluctantly, to go to the Continent of Europe and America to buy our rolling stock. If these influences continue to develop in Great Britain, we shall have to look to other countries more and more for commodities which we have been in the habit of buying from Great Britain. This is a very painful fact to many members, but it needs emphasizing to explain why we have passed over Great Britain. I would like to refer to a book published in 1865 by Mr. Stanley Jevons on the coal crisis.

What did they say in 1065?

What Mr. Jevons said was this—

Well, we are witnessing these things in our day. England is being outstripped by her rivals.

You seem very sorry.

You ought to be sorry. Take the years 1900 to 1913. America’s output of pig iron rose from 14,000,000 to 30,000,000 tons, Germany’s rose from 8,000,000 to 20,000,000 tons, while England barely kept her place.

Do you gloat over these things?

Things are very much blacker with regard to England’s coal supply.

She has still got her navy.

What has this got to do with railways?

Members of the Opposition may laugh about these things, but men who really care for Great Britain and know the facts will not make light of these things.

You have to run railways on split rails with bust engines.

The richest seams of coal have been worked out in England, and we know about the coal strike and other labour troubles. We know that breakers are ahead with regard to Great Britain’s future, and this fact will explain why South Africa will more and move have to go to the Continent and America. Great Britain has had a mushroom history during the last century. In 1600 the population of Great Britain was just about that of South Africa to-day. In 1800 it was less than nine millions, and in 1900 the figure stood at 33 millions.

Order! The hon. member is wandering very far from railways.

I may be wandering very far from railways, but I am trying to explain why the present Government is compelled to go to the Continent and America for rolling stock.

The hon. member must not go too far afield.

I am only dealing with actual conditions regarding industrial life in Great Britain as far as the cost of production of railway material for use in this country. The fact remains that England is steering more and more for the rocks. She now has a population of somewhere near 38,000,000. She has only been able to increase the population because she has been able to produce cheap coal and cheap iron ore.

Give us the other side of the picture.

I have been reading a book by Dean Inge, who has been called—

but he is looked upon in Great Britain as a far-seeing thinker. In the last book of his, if members would do justice to themselves by reading it, they will find Dean Inge, after surveying the industrial position in Great Britain, concludes with these words—

What is the greatest empire the world has ever known? There is life in the old dog yet.

Oh, yes, there is life in the old dog yet, is an expression often heard nowadays with regard to England.

The old dog has got a lot of pups.

We often find the impression offered nowadays that the old country is not finished yet.

You sit down, or you will soon be finished.

When one hears these numerous protests, it makes one think of the saying in Shakespeare—

I have ventured these facts not to gloat over them, but to give them as a true explanation why this Government and the previous Government found themselves compelled to pass by Great Britain and go to other markets. It is not due to any anti-British feeling, but it is due to the fact that there is a canker gnawing at the vitals of Great Britain, and we in South Africa object to being used to bolster up British industry when it is already tottering to its fall.

I entirely disagree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) in his conclusions which he draws from so-called facts which are unreliable. But I am sure that he is not actuated by racial prejudice. Everyone who knows the hon. member will agree that his speech was uttered more in sorrow than in glee. The best answer to the views expressed by the hon. member and the facts he has given is to be found in the great work done by the Prime Minister in England a few weeks ago. Those who have followed the economic position know that there is a fight going on between three factors. On the one side there are the steel trusts and Cartels, on the Continent, largely financed by American money; on the other hand there are the American trusts; and thirdly, there is a feeling amongst a large number of people in Great Britain and the colonies which does not agree with the policies of exploitation in the past, a feeling held by the Labour party in Great Britain and even by Mr. Baldwin, that the time is arriving when a new factor is coming into operation, the factor of co-operation and development between Great Britain and the dominions in the interests of the people, and not in the interests of private financiers. Those responsible for the development of England have too long concentrated on their own profits. I believe that the industrial development now taking place is going along the lines I have mentioned, and I must say the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is too gloomy in his prophecies this afternoon. Wherever it is possible, when we cannot manufacture the things we require in this country, and I believe it is our duty to manufacture all our requirements where possible; but if we cannot do it, our economic interests will be better served in getting those requirements from Great Britain rather than going to the Continent or to America. The only reason for placing some of our orders with Belgium or the Continent was one based on the old exploded economic theories of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), that you must buy in the cheapest market, and sell in the dearest. I was rather surprised to find the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) quoting with such glee the fallacies of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), who has probably a much sounder knowledge of economics. The experts who reported to the Government of South Africa in connection with the iron and steel question pointed out that Belgium has been undercutting Great Britain, not because of increased efficiency, but because they have been selling at a loss, and naturally when that takes place, you have to recognize that they are going to make it up some way or other, and they have been making it up in defective goods. Complaints have been made by the South African party as to the criticism levelled at the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). They started this policy and have been taking out of all sorts of documents everything they could find in an attempt to procure some powder to shoot at the Government and at the Minister. Having done that, obviously we were going to show, as has been clearly shown, that a good many of the criticisms they have levelled against things done by the Government really reflects on them, because the Government is the unwilling continuer of mistakes of the previous Government, so they cannot complain when points are made about what was done by the late Minister of Railways. The late Minister of Railways resigned from the South African party Government, because he and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) definitely disagreed with regard to his policy on the railways, and the hon. member for Standerton came out with a big statement on the eve of the election. We are only pointing out to the House what the hon. member for Standerton pointed out on the eve of the 1924 election. They come here and take up the time of the House with quotations from the Auditor-General’s report which we can read for ourselves. We all know he is an official provided by every Government for the benefit of every Opposition, who come along and quote him not on matters of policy, but on matters of detail which we can do without. We must have some liveliness in the House, and that is why I am glad the Auditor-General’s office is being continued. The hon. member for Yeoville(Mr. Duncan) extracted figures which the Minister has already given to the House, and he quoted figures to show expenditure is rising and revenue is falling. It conies badly from our friends in the Opposition, because for a number of years whilst they were in office they could not make their accounts balance. They did not know for many years what it was like to have a surplus. Now they come with criticisms in face of the startling statement of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). The hon. member got hold of a very interesting circular which showed that as far as Railway Administration is concerned, they had given instructions that efficiency must be the important factor for consideration in the railway administration of this country. The South African Labour party do not believe in making a job simply for the sake of making a job. We believe that administration should be carried out with efficiency. I agree with the Administration that it is not good for the country or the people or the civil servants to keep men on, whether you require them or not, and the true policy from the Labour point of view is that there should be a standard set as regards conditions of labour in private industry, and that employees of the Government should recognize they are not working for private individuals, but that they are really officials of the State working for the well-being of the State, and should set a standard in efficiency. I do want, however, to indicate one or two points on which I still very considerably disagree with the Minister. I refer, first of all, to the question of the eight-hour day. I do believe that the establishment of an eight-hour day, leaving out every other consideration, will tend to greater efficiency as far as the service is concerned, and that it is a principle which the Government should apply, because they should set an example to the rest of the country in so far as the hours and conditions of labour are concerned. I would go further, and say that the Government are in duty bound to apply the eight-hour day to the railway service, because undoubtedly one of the pledges made to the railwaymen of South Africa is that the present Government would restore the eight-hour day. Full effect, I would urge, should be given to the recommendations of the Hours of Duty Committee. We have been told, during last session when this matter was brought up, that what was done—and I admit a considerable amount was done towards meeting requirements—was an instalment. We ask that a further instalment should be given now, and that there should not be any undue delay in carrying out the pledges which were given not only by members on these benches, but pledges made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign of 1924. Another point I want to emphasize is this question of differential rates. I submit it is bad policy to have two individuals employed on the same class of work getting different rates of pay for that work. I hope that the Minister will take into very serious consideration, if he cannot concede what we are asking for at the moment, 100 per cent., whether he cannot give another substantial instalment in connection with the matter. There is one other matter which was referred to by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), which, although the South African party were largely responsible for it, is, I agree, a matter that should be remedied. I refer to the question of overtime. He referred to the amount of money, something over a million, which is being expended in overtime. I submit to the Minister that, as long as there are men capable of doing the work in the country who are unemployed, it is wrong policy from the national point of view to make others work longer hours than are necessary or good for them. That is one aspect. There is another aspect, the efficiency standpoint. Anyone who has studied the researches which have been carried out into this question will know that it has been conclusively shown that a person can only usefully and efficiently carry out work for a certain number of hours, and if he has to work longer hours than that, his efficiency becomes diminished. The effect of carrying on systematic overtime is this, that the Government is paying time and a quarter for work which is done less efficiently than it could be done by men who are engaged definitely to do the work in their ordinary time. In the researches which I have mentioned it was shown conclusively in Great Britain that as you reduce the hours of labour, so you increase the output to a considerable percentage, and the latest statistics show that the ideal number of hours from an efficiency point of view that should be worked is 40 per week. Some reference has been made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), and supported by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow), to the question of cheaper rates. There again I do not think anyone in the House, on whatever side he may sit, disagrees with the policy that rates should be reduced as far as possible in the interests of the farmers and in the interests of industry as a whole, but I do make this qualification, which has not been made by the hon. member for Yeoville, that before rates are reduced there should be. first, a definite inquiry as to the need for the reduction of those rates; and secondly—and this is of more importance—some provision should be made that the benefit of those reduced rates shall go to the right person, to the farmer and to the vast mass of the people, and not to a handful of people who are exploiting them. I recently saw in the “Manchester Guardian” a statement by someone who had lived something like 30 years in South Africa relative to the fruit exported from South Africa to England. He gave specific examples to show that in the districts of Albany and Alexandria, in the Cape Province, the pineapple farmer is satisfied if he can get 1s. to 1s. 6d. per dozen for pineapples of average size. After making a generous allowance for all charges, he says, Cape pineapples can be landed in England for 6d. each, and he asks why it is that these pineapples are being sold in England at from 2s. to 4s. each. The reason is simple, and it is this, that any benefit of reduced railway rates does not go to the farmer or the producer or the consumer, but to the handful of people who are exploiting both the producer and the consumer. I would urge that the Minister of Agriculture, who is anxious to further the agricultural industry in South Africa, should co-operate with the Minister of Railways and determine to secure the establishment of a State marketing service in England for the produce of South Africa, so that the producer will get the full value of Ms produce, and at the same time the consumer in England will get it at much lower prices than he does now, and thereby you will be increasing the market for South African produce, and that produce will become much more popular overseas than it is, because it can be bought at reasonable prices. There is one other point I want to draw the Minister’s attention to. It has been stated very freely in the press that the present general manager of railways is about to relinquish his duties; and although in this House from all parties from time to time there have been criticisms levelled against him, I think we are all in agreement with one thing, that he has been doing his best according to his lights to further the interests of South Africa and the Railway Administration. I would urge upon the Minister and upon the Railway Board this consideration, that one of the effects of State enterprize and one of the reasons why it is unpopular among some people, is the policy of appointing a technical man and expecting him to be a business manager also. I think the Minister might seriously consider the proposition that in replacing the present general manager he should secure the best possible business man that he can, at whatever salary may be necessary, in order that in addition to the technical men we have, we shall have someone who will deal with the Railway Department as a business concern, and on the basis that our railways must not wait for business to come to them, but, like any other business concern, they must look for business. That would be doing what is being laid down in the provisions of the Bill in regard to the steel and iron industry, to divide the technical from the business management. There is one other matter. We have heard a great deal lately about the American tourists. I feel that the incursion of these tourists may possibly lead to an increase in our population. Some of them may settle; some of their friends may come to settle. These tourists are coming here in larger numbers every year, largely as the result of the publicity campaign of the Railway Administration. As far as one can gather from the estimates, I believe we have been spending something like £10,000 a year.

£25,000.

I understand, at any rate, that the amount that is spent, having regard to America, is not as adequate as it might be. The excellent results already obtained would be increased if the Government would take into consideration increasing that expenditure and extending that publicity. I submit that to the Minister, because he is probably more anxious than anyone to see that South Africa shall become so popular in the eyes of people all over the world that they shall come not only as tourists, but more and more as settlers in South Africa, helping to develop the country in such a way as to get rid of many of its problems.

If this House had wanted a signal example of the folly of putting parsons into politics, it could not have done better than to listen to the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). Most hon. members of this House will agree with me in describing that speech as entirely a stupid, ill-informed and mischievous one. The hon. member, while shedding what appeared to be crocodile tears over the approaching and imminent doom of the British Empire, used this jeremiad as an apparent justification for South Africa not continuing to give orders for its manufacturing requirements in Great Britain.

Why don’t you state the thing fairly?

I am stating it fairly, and if the hon. member listened to that speech without indignation, I do not envy the mental makeup of the hon. member. Remembering the speech the hon. member for Winburg made in this House last year on behalf of his own people, pleading for a South African flag, remembering its emotional appeal, I can only say that the speech he made this afternoon was unfortunate and undignified in the last degree, and has wiped out, in the minds of most hon. members on this side any feeling of respect left with them after listening to his eloquent speech last year. His argument amounts to this: England is a decadent nation; the death knell of England is sounded; it is steering for the rocks—

do not buy any more of our requirements in England. Make new orientations, he says,, economic and social towards America, Belgium, and God knows where. He has made one of the most insolent and provocative speeches ever made this year, and he does not need the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) to reply to my criticism of it; let him reply himself. His speech must have given the deepest offence on this side of the House and, I venture to say, even in the ranks of his Labour allies on the cross benches. He says that England has ceased to count economically; it is a dying nation; it is no longer a matter of profit to us in South Africa to make our purchases there, and, therefore, the Government is justified in throwing it overboard and making our purchases in Belgium, the Argentine, America—anywhere but Great Britain. Let me come down to cold facts, and let me remind him of a fact that he has probably forgotten, if he ever knew it, that the bulk of our own trade is with this decadent and dying nation. I want to read him the figures, which he has probably never seen before—it is a case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread—as to the extent and nature of our trade with this nation which he treats with such contempt. In 1925 the value of South African products, exclusive of South African gold sent to the United Kingdom, was 24 millions, or 56 per cent. of the total; to the British dominions, 2 millions, or 4 per cent.; to the United States of America, 2 millions, or 4 per cent.; Belgium, £1,600,000, or 3.9 per cent.; France, 4 millions, or just over, or 8 per cent.; Germany, 4 millions, or 8 per cent,; Holland, 2 millions, or 5 per cent.; Italy, just under 1 million, or 2 per cent.; other countries, 2 millions, or 5 per cent.

I never treated England with any contempt.

That was worse.

I express pleasure at the statement of the hon. gentleman, but I can only say he was singularly unfortunate in the language he chose and in the manner in which he handled the subject. If he did not do so, he would better have left the matter alone, as it has not the remotest bearing on railway finance. There is another portion of his speech to which I would like to refer—his references to one of the provinces of the Union as—

I said that it was to a large extent.

You said it twice.

Perhaps the hon. member’s friend and coadjutor, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) will say whether I was repeating the hon. member correctly. He repeated the statement. His view of railway economics is this—that Natal is a native and coolie reserve; ergo, any expenditure on railway electrification in Natal is money unwisely spent. He seems to me a spiritual descendant of that man he reads of in the Bible, who said—

And the answer to that was—

I suggest to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that before he makes stupid speeches about England and Natal he should “go and see.” I rose not to deal with the hon. member for Winburg, who, after all, is small fry in this House, but to deal with one of the most important matters which has come within the purview of the House this session, what is now known as—

I am not concerned so much with the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser), as with the Minister. I see, from a memorandum from the general manager of railways and harbours, dated 27th of March, 1926, the following information was supplied to the Minister. The memorandum regarding the purchase of sleepers from and sale of South African coal to certain interests in the Argentine Republic, signed by Sir William Hoy, states—

We know that in March last negotiations had reached fruition between Dr. Visser, on the one hand, and the railway administration, represented by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, on the other, by which sleepers were to be purchased by Dr. Visser in the Argentine for the administration, and supplies of coal were to be sent by him in exchange. What was the position of the negotiating parties at that time? I see in front of me the one party on the front Ministerial bench—the Minister of Railways and Harbours—and the other also on the Ministerial front bench a few feet away—the hon. member for Vrededorp, and I say, of all the unedifying transactions to which this Government has entertained the country and this House this is certainly the most remarkable. Here you have got not only a front bencher negotiating with his own Government, but this hon. gentleman happens to be the Chairman of the Railway Committee of this House. I say it is almost unbelievable, but it is so. Here you have the Chairman of the Railway Committee of this House becoming a railway contractor and contracting to deliver railway sleepers. The contract was signed in July, 1926, or a month or so after the House rose; under that contract Dr. Visser undertook to supply the railway administration with a minimum quantity of 1 million Quebracho sleepers per annum. They are known as large sleepers. Apparently there are two kinds of sleepers used by the railway, large and small, but the majority are large sleepers. We have ascertained that the annual consumption of sleepers is very slightly in excess of 1 million per annum; so that it comes to this, that this hon. gentleman was given by the railways a monopoly of South Africa’s sleeper supply under a contract to supply as many sleepers as he liked, but not less than the minimum and the cost was f.o.b., Buenos Aires, 6s. 8⅛£d. The total gross value of the contract is £335,000 per annum, or spread over three years, £1,000,000. One can call this quite justifiably—

Have I to do more than state those facts which emerge from the documents laid by the Minister on the Table to prove that the Government has been guilty of an act of the gravest impropriety, an act which the public will view as putting upon them the stigma of having acted in the most indecent and scandalous fashion. I must say the very thought of the Chairman of the Railway Committee negotiating and bargaining with the railway fills me with horror. Last session (1926) was one of the most critical sessions we have had in this country as far as the railway administration was concerned, because it was on its defence on the Auditor-General’s report on electrification in Natal. This report came up to the House and was referred to the Railway Committee of this House, the Chairman and the chief judge of which was Dr. Visser. At the time he was sitting in judgment on the railway administration, on their delinquencies or otherwise, he was negotiating to become a contractor with them for “the million pound contract.” I say this is comparable to the judge president during a case negotiating the sale of his house to the defendant in that case during the hearing. How can we expect to get decent administration, or for this House to have the respect of the public, if we put up with the chairman of what is an auditing committee going to the Railway Department and saying—

and the Railway Department agreeing. I lack language strong enough to express the feeling we have in regard to that contract. It is true that the contract never came to fruition; it became a binding contract, but was never carried out because it contained a clause which compelled the hon. member to put up security and that security, evidently, he failed to supply. Whether the contract was carried out or not makes not the slightest difference to the grave impropriety of Government entering into a contract of this sort. It amounted to giving Dr. Visser a virtual monopoly of South Africa’s sleeper supplies. No member of Parliament, be the Government front bencher or Opposition back bencher, or be he Chairman of the Railway Select Committee or not, should contract for the Government; that is an elementary principle of our public life. No member of any town council can contract with his own council.

Do you allow Government to retain counsel who are members of this House?

If the Government gave an annual retainer, the position becomes an office of profit under the Crown, so the answer is no. But individual members of this House have been briefed to act for the Government in individual cases. There is no analogy at all, but if that practice would lead to incidents such as the Visser contract, then for God’s sake, abolish that as well. Let us have the principle which has been adopted in the Transvaal, where if a man is a member of a municipal council he may not act for or against the council.

Will you apply that rule to the law?

If the practice of individual members accepting briefs stands in the way, let us abolish that practice. Since I have been a member of the House I have never had a Government brief.

What about the solicitor who gets all the railway work?

He is not a member of the House. In any case, two wrongs never made a right.

Do you include them in your sweeping proposals?

I would like to see the same rule passed here as applies in England. “May’s Parliamentary Practice” states—

The Government, I understand, took legal advice on the question from the Government Attorney, and was told that legally the contract was in order, and did not come within the terms of Section 53 of the South Africa Act. But it is not the question of the legality, but the propriety of the contract, that I am raising. Although technically the Minister may have believed that it was a legal contract, the spirit of Section 53 was certainly violated. Section 53 says—

Technically, no doubt, a contractor who undertakes to supply £1,000,000 worth of goods does not hold an office of profit under the Crown, but it comes within the spirit of this section, and it was intended that persons who have large Government contracts should not be eligible to sit in the House. I understand that the hon. member has been re-elected chairman of the Railway Committee, in spite of the protests which have been raised against this contract. This contract would naturally come up for revision from the Auditor-General to that committee, and when it comes up he has to sit in judgment on it.

That is covered by rule 122.

I am going to ask who normally will sit on that committee. I say it comes before the Railway Committee, of which the hon. member is chairman. Possibly when that particular contract came up he would say that he ought not to sit. If he did not say it, no doubt some of the other members would say it for him. It is an extraordinary thing when matters have come to the pass that the head of the Railway Committee must say—

The Minister has made a grave blunder. He was gravely in error in even allowing a contract of this sort to be discussed with a member of Parliament. He should have said, if the member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) was anxious to become rich quickly and to drop his medical profession and become a railway contractor, then he must get out of Parliament, and then he would talk to him. Adisquieting feature of this matter, too, was the secrecy of it. The House was thick with rumours about the approaching visit of Dr. Visser to the Argentine, but one could not get any information. At the time the hon. member was sitting with the Railway Committee on Electrification, he was negotiating, no doubt secretly, with the railway. If the Government wanted sleepers from the Argentine, why did not they put the contract up to public tender? Why were these negotiations conducted secretly with the member for Vrededorp? Why did not the Minister say publicly in March last that he wanted sleepers from the Argentine, and that the hon. member for Vrededorp was going to buy them, and that if other members of Parliament wanted to compete with the hon. member he would consider their application? The hon. member must have used the information he got on the Railway Committee to know anything at all about sleepers. I might have wanted a trip to the Argentine myself, but I didn’t know the Government had such a lust for Argentine sleepers that it was sending its head of the Railway Committee to the Argentine to get them. The extreme undesirability of contractual relations existing between the Government and one of its supporters in the House is emphasized by the incidents of this contract. When this matter was made public and the newspapers were dealing with this matter, the hon. member went along to the newspapers and gave his version of the whole affair. I have never read anything so amusing. It appears we have had in our midst for the last few years a philanthropist in disguise. He was so imbued with altruism and patriotism that, having secured this contract to sell sleepers at a fixed price to the South African Government, he went to the Argentine without any thought of filthy lucre or making profit of any kind, and he told the papers that he couldn’t I make a penny out of it. He went there to buy these sleepers at his own price and sell them to the Government at their price, i.e.,6s. 8½d. per sleeper. I confess that I am so sordid-minded that I would never even attempt to reach the heights of the member for Vrededorp. I am glad to see he is held in such esteem by hon. members over there as being a person who would go to the Argentine and take all the risk of loss which would fall upon him, with never the thought of making any profit. I cannot pretend to reach such dis-interested heights as that. Sordid persons like myself would look upon that as a contract for gain. The Government made him put up sureties and provide drastic penalties for default, which seems to show that they didn’t treat him as being the high-minded gentleman he made himself out to be in the “Argus” newspaper. If he had defaulted, they would have come down on him. I do not blame the Railway Department for the terms of the contract itself, for they seem to have taken proper precautions. My criticism is that they dared to make a contract with a front bencher on the Government side. I hope the Minister will reply fully to my criticism. If we don’t stop this sort of thing, we shall get the chairman of the Committee on Lands buying land and selling it to the Government and telling us he was not making a profit; the chairman of the Native Affairs Committee doing the same in the native territories, and the chairman of the Pensions Committee trafficking in pensions and saying he was only doing it in the public interest. It is an almost unprecedented thing in the public life of this country, and nothing the hon. Minister has done in the administration of this country reflects less credit on him or his administration. One word more. Why this passion for getting things everywhere and anywhere in the world outside the empire? Ever since we have had railways in the country we have been content to import sleepers from Australia, and I have never heard that they were not good sleepers, but it seems to be the established policy of the Government to get rotten engines from America, rotten rails from Belgium, and to send members of Parliament to get, as no doubt they would be, rotten sleepers from the Argentine.

I ask whether the hon. member’s party is in favour of legislation which will prohibit members of Parliament contracting with the Government, and legislation which will prohibit members of Parliament from supplying the Government with goods? I am afraid that the hon. member has spoken without sufficient support or knowledge of the history of his own party in this country in the past. In town councils, provincial councils and other bodies, the Labour party have always been the pioneers of legislation in this direction, and the people who have opposed it, and repealed the laws afterwards when they got into power, have been members of the South African party. On the Transvaal Provincial Council members of the South African party, who are members of the town councils on the Rand, voted against this principle for years. The point they made was where are you going to get members of Parliament from in South Africa if you exclude business men?

Give us a case.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would not be in this House if that legislation was passed. He could not sit there. I make no reflections on the hon. member at all. I could give the names of business men in Boksburg who, after this legislation was passed prohibiting them from contracting with the town council, refused to stand any longer as candidates, members of the South African party. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that it is undesirable that members of Parliament or members of any public body should contract with the body of which they are members. It is the old party game. It is simply a question now of trying to make the people of South Africa believe that the members of this wicked Government are the first people ever to do anything of this description. Has the hon. member gone into the history of the land deals while the late Minister of Lands of that party was in office? The hon. member belonged to the committee of which I was a member, and he knows that in connection with various transactions in this country, no credit attached to many of the men concerned.

Who are you speaking of?

Do you agree with the Visser contract?

I must confess that I don’t know sufficient about it to express an opinion. I am not a member of the Railway Committee.

Do you agree with the principle?

I said distinctly that I disagree with the principle of any member of any public body contracting with the body of which he is a member. I say that if this legislation was passed—and I for one would welcome it—there would be many empty benches on the opposite side of the House after the next election. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has frequently protested against members of this House being on commissions and that sort of thing. I have been informed that the hon. member was once retained as adviser to the High Commissioner with a retainer of £300 a year while a member of this House. I do not know whether it is true or not.

On a point of personal explanation, may I say that there is not a word of truth in it. What is true is that I have, at times, done legal work, not for the High Commissioner in London, as the hon. member suggests, but his Majesty’s High Commissioner here, in regard to imperial territories, namely, Basutoland and Swaziland-and nothing to do with Union territory. I have not had a retainer.

Yes—

Withdraw.

I say that that is a very fine legal method of splitting hairs—

Withdraw.

I am not going to withdraw. I have said nothing that needs withdrawal. There is another point in connection with the hon. member’s speech in which he said that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) had made—

That is a case of Satan rebuking sin. One speech which the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) made quite recently in the Cape Peninsula was an ill-informed and mischievous speech, in which he stated that members on the Labour benches had been bribed by the Government to support the Flag Bill by an increase in their salaries.

Order; the hon. member must not go into that.

I do not intend to go into it, but it only shows that while hon. members on the opposite side are very anxious to refute any imputations made on their honour, they are not against making imputations against the honour of other hon. members of this House, and scandalous imputations, too. I must disagree with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winburg. I understood him to say that the reason why orders are going to the Continent and America is because there is a canker destroying England’s industry. Where I disagree with him is this, that the reason why orders are going to the Continent and America is the same reason why, if you go outside this House, you will find practically 99 percent. of the motor-cars belonging to hon. members have been imported front America. The reason why orders go to America is because the inherent principle of business dealings is to buy in the cheapest market, irrespective of where you buy or whether your goods have been produced by sweated labour or otherwise. Hon. members sitting on both sides of the House, and particularly hon. members opposite, who protest most strenuously about their love for the British empire, wear clothes made in Japan, boots made in America, and they import all sorts of goods into this country from Japan, America and anywhere where they can possibly get them cheap and sell them to the public in South Africa.

What about your Ford car?

Unlike the hon. member. I cannot afford a Ford car I say that I disagree with the hon. gentleman (Dr. van der Merwe). If you go to the customs, you will even find that most of the Union Jacks which are flown in this country have been produced in foreign countries. It is the system under which we are living to-day, where every man is out to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. Years ago England was the workshop of the world, but to-day her position is being challenged because other countries are entering the industrial field. The great question in the future, when all these countries have reached their industrial zenith, is, what are they going to do with their surplus? The real reason why the South African Government to-day, and in the past, have gone to the Continent is because we believe in buying in the cheapest market. Hon. members on that side believe in supporting at all times uncivilized labour because they believe in buying their labour in the cheapest market. Their own flesh and blood, their own countrymen, are no concern of theirs providing they can get the native to work for them on a pittance on which their countrymen would starve to death. The whole principle of the system is even buying human beings in the cheapest possible market, and these members get up and talk as if some great crime were being committed against the empire and use it for the purpose of influencing votes in this country, not because they have loved their empire in the past, but because they loved profits in the war. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), in his speech, pleaded for a reduction in railway rates, and many other hon. members on that side have also pleaded for a reduction. They have put forward the case of the poor down-trodden farmer in South Africa, and the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) also pleaded for some timber merchants.

No, growers. Don’t you know the difference between a grower and a merchant?

You mean an undertaker.

Not one of these members has stood up and said the carriage on timber is so much, and the cost of transport so much, and you are making too much profit. Hon. members over there in one breath say you should run these railways on business lines, and the hon. member for Umvoti made the same plea at the same time as he made a plea for a reduction of rates would the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) carry timber at less than cost? No, certainly not. Hon. members are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to use the railways as a national asset for the purpose of developing the country, and in the same breath they say let us run it purely as a business concern. You cannot do it. Hon. members who are pleading for a reduction in rates have not brought forward an atom of evidence to show that the profit is too much on any particular commodity. In the next breath they will condemn State railways; they will condemn socialism when, as business men, they are exploiting a socialistic principle for their own profit, that is, that a national concern shall be run in the interests of the community. In connection with the controversy over the electrification of the Natal railways, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) supported the charge made from this side of the House. He stated that the Minister himself intervened; he gave orders to transfer the work from south to north of Pietermaritzburg. He also made a statement that the estimates had been carefully prepared for the line from Pietermaritzburg to Durban, and the work was transferred from where it was originally intended, on the instructions of the late Minister, to north of Pietermaritzburg.

I never denied that.

Had that work been carried out at less than the estimates, the hon. members on that side would have said that the late Minister deserved all the credit because of his foresight. The late Minister is responsible for the change, and he should take the blame, and it is unfair for hon. members on that side to stand up and make a mass attack on these benches for something they are responsible for. It has been done in connection with the Durban elevator and in connection with many other things for which that party was responsible. This Government has had to take over their schemes and nurse the baby. The method adopted by many hon. members on that side is to take comparisons with railway rates in 1914. They come here and quote figures to make out that this Government is responsible for millions more expenditure to-day. I say it is unfair, and it is a thing that some hon. members on that side should not be guilty of. In connection with the civilized labour question, what do members of the Opposition want?

To get into office.

Do the leaders of the South African party tell the House they are in favour of pushing uncivilized labour to its logical conclusion? It is no use their saying they are in favour of uncivilized labour to do unskilled work or semi-skilled work. You cannot keep your working class down. Where are hon. members going to stop? Instead of trying to make party capital out of the question of the employment of civilized labour in this country, I ask them what is the outlook for the future of our sons unless we have a civilized labour policy? They are out as the party or organization to exploit this doctrine of buying in the cheapest market, until the time will come when the white population is walking round the streets unemployed. All you will have is a small force of skilled, highly-paid overseers. That is what was happening before the present Government came into power. I want to ask hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, when they are up against cheap unskilled labour themselves, they complain most bitterly, as they do in regard to Asiatic labour. How can you expect in this country the most physically unfit of the white community, men who have been driven down in the Scale of life, to do as much work as three or four uncivilized men—most superior physically, but inferior mentally? Then you complain because the former get a miserable pittance. Hon. members opposite ought to be pleased that this policy is being carried out. As to this question of preference to Great Britain, hon. members on the other side do not themselves carry it out, but on numerous occasions when they were in power, they purchased outside of Great Britain; but it has become a fixed policy of the South African party to leave no opportunity unseized to make out that members on this side of the House are anti-British. It is a racial policy, and one to stir up racial feeling. Hon. members on that side are always ready to seize on any little thing that may be said, and to twist it round. The greatest racial organization in South Africa to-day, I say, is the South African party, and hon. members on that side of the House are treading a very dangerous path. Only the other day the question was raised when we said— You would think we were anti-British, and the cry came from the other side—

Did you hear the speech of the hon. member for Win burg (Dr. van der Merwe) this afternoon?

It is just as I stated— the hon. member will go back to Natal and gloat over some of the words of the hon. gentleman.

I deplore it.

Many people will not get the same speech as was made by the hon. member for Winburg. They will get certain words, and there will be distortion. I wish to direct a few words to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and I want to ask him whether he is prepared to set up some machinery on the lines of the Whitley council, or some other machinery, by which he can deal with the real grievances and anomalies of railway workers. The rail way men in South Africa are not satisfied. I am not one of those who are prepared to say that every one of their grievances is legitimate, or fair and reasonable, but there are a number of grievances which are fair and reasonable. Take the question of the relief system on trains. The eight hours’ day should have been put into operation on the busy sections, such as the section from Braamfontein to Springs. The system of working men at short time the whole of the week and 14 or 15 or 16 hours on Saturdays is wrong, for no one can do his work properly under such conditions. I believe personally, and I am expressing my own personal opinion, when I say that the Graham report is no longer practical politics. The catering staff have long hours and low wages—they are starvation wages, and should be increased at the earliest possible opportunity. The ticket examiners are also working long hours. There is housing for the employees under the Minister’s care. If you went in for a huge housing scheme, it would be doing a good thing, and would be relieving the railway employees. Only by co-operation between the Government and the men can the best results be achieved and a high efficiency maintained.

I think the House listened with considerable amusement and interest to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. We know on the best of authority that the hon. member has a balanced mind, which has been put to such dexterous use this afternoon that he has succeeded in balancing himself so well that no one knows on which side he has come down on the real points with which he dealt. He dealt with the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), the most deplorable speech we have had for many a day, and apparently endorsed by the Minister of Defence. It was rightly stamped by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) as a racialist speech. But we have not yet heard from the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) whether he agrees that that speech is a racialist speech or not. He made all sorts of charges against this side —entirely unjustified—of being a racial party, but he never uttered one word of protest against the racialism which was the essential mainspring of the whole of the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). The next point of importance was the question whether the Visser contract is or is not in the interests of public morality. He charged this party with accusing the other side of anti-British methods. I ask the hon. gentleman where does his balance come in when the whole charge made by us against the Government is that they had gone to the cheapest market for engines and rails and goodness knows what besides.

Didn’t my predecessor do that too?

I am dealing with the point made by the hon. member for Brakpan.

I said that was an evil inherent to the system of going to the cheapest market.

It is a bad policy and an evil If these are the sentiments of the party which control the Pact, and this Government goes to the cheapest market instead of buying British goods which reputation and experience show to be the best, is that not an indication of anti-British bias? The hon. member has succeeded most dexterously in invading the answer to ether questions put this afternoon. Does the hon. member agree with the language and tone of an hon. member who this afternoon on a question of contracts dragged in in such a way that Mr. Speaker had to interfere, an attack on the British system and cheerfully and joyfully announced how Britain was going to the dogs? It has the finest growth that any country has ever seen during the past century. England will go on in spite of the puny efforts of the hon. member for Winburg supported by the thorougly loyal and patriotic member for Brakpan. I now come to the Visser contract. I wish to endosre most fully the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) as to the undesirability, the political wrong and the damage and demoralization that are likely to be caused to public life by the sort of contract made by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). I can imagine little more likely to cause disaster to the ship of State than hon. members entering into contracts with the Government. There are very few members who must not have been shocked when the revelations were made regarding this contract. There is another point to be considered besides the question of the advisability or propriety of contracts being made between a member who is a supporter of the Government and chairman of the Railway Committee. What qualifications had the hon. member for carrying out the contract—what does he know about sleepers?

I sent my officer to South America to protect my interests.

According to Hansard, on May 28th last, the Minister of Railways and Harbours was pressed for information regarding the supply of sleepers, by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) who said—

The Minister in his reply said—

The hon. member for Illovo interjected—

The Minister replied—

I ask this House and I ask the Minister of Railways why was not a reply given at that time to the House when the question was definitely raised that the member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) had a contract in his pocket, or was about to get it, and let the House know what the position was in regard to the hon. member so that the Minister might have had an expression of opinion. I think it would have been an expression of disgust, on the steps about to be taken.

There was no contract existing.

Then I am going to ask the Minister some questions. How did that contract originate, what was the genesis of it, who suggested the hon. member for Vrededorp should be the person to buy sleepers, and if the Minister has correspondence on this subject will he lay it on the Table of the House?

I have laid all the papers on the Table on this subject.

You laid on the Table a memorandum, and this memorandum is dated March, and on the 28th May the House, knowing nothing about these papers, is informed by the Minister of Railways in regard to a specific statement and question that—

I did not say that.

I will read it again. The date is the 28th May, 1926, and that is the statement in the House by the Minister of Railways, and two months before that, the 27th March, we have a memorandum by the general manager of railways which reads—

The sleeper question and the coal question are dovetailed together in the contract. The date of that was the 27th March and it was on the 28th May when the Minister, asked a specific question, gave the House no information, but he gave the House distintly misleading information.

In what way?

I am not going to repeat it over and over again.

Don’t make allegations which you cannot prove.

Then I will read it again. On page 4312 of Hansard, Mr. Marwick, in making a speech, said—

And then he goes on to say something about Dempers concrete sleepers, and continues—

The Minister replied after the debate, on page 4313. When asked a second time whether anyone was being sent to the Argentine, the only reply given to the House on that important question, specifically raised twice, was—

Does the hon. member suggest that I sent Dr. Visser?

Is that the explanation? I want to know; when he said we had sent one of our construction engineers who might, later on, go to the Argentine and South America, I want to know whether the Minister had not learned of Dr. Visser going there.

Certainly not.

Then it is an extraordinary state of affairs, this lack of knowledge on the part of the Minister.

He was sent by the Department.

Didn’t the Minister know about the contract?

In August.

Was he aware of the memorandum of the general manager of railways on the 27th March? If the Minister is going to get out of his difficulty that way, then I ask it is shuffling.

Prove it.

You were twice asked about it. Does the Minister know this contract was a dummy contract, and was the hon. member sent to the Argentine by the Minister?

You know that is not correct.

The hon. member must guard himself. He is going too far. The hon. member is suggesting that the hon. Minister was suppressing an agreement and was submitting a dummy agreement to the House.

I was not suggesting that, sir. What I suggested was to the effect that the terms of the agreement amount to this, that the hon. member for Vrededorp was really going on behalf of the Government. That is a fair interpretation of the agreement. I am going to read that agreement.

Don’t shuffle out of your dummy agreement statement.

I am not shuffling out of anything. It is not my habit. When one reads the contract that was entered into I can only say if ever a contract was made on which the contractor was on velvet, it was this particular contract.

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

When the House adjourned I said I would deal with the terms of the contract and state to the House what impression the terms of the contract make upon anyone who reads this document. This contract is dated, not in August as the Minister said, but in July, and signed C. W. Malan, 9th July, 1926. The contract reads—

The first point I make is that the contractor shall sell and the Administration shall buy and I want to know whether the Minister had any proof at all or any guarantee at all that the contractor, when he made that arrangement, had the sleepers to sell which he undertook to sell. Then it is set forth that the sleepers are to be supplied upon certain specifications. Under Clause 2 the Administration has the right of rejection of any sleepers which are found on receipt here not to be satisfactory, and the Administration reserves the right of cancelling the contract forthwith if 10 per cent. of the first or any other shipment, is found to be unsatisfactory on delivery. Clause 4 provides that the contractor shall tender the cargo at a certain rate and that if he fails to do so he shall be liable to demurrage of £75 a day. Clause 5 provides that in case the contractor fails to deliver the sleepers f.o.r. at the place and time and rate specified he shall be liable to a deduction from the contract price by way of liquidated damages and not as a penalty at a rate of ¼d per sleeper per diem. Clause 6 provides that the price shall be 6s. 8½d. per sleeper f.o.r. subject to deductions, if any, which may be payable under Clauses 2, 4 and 5 and also under Clause 10—

I ask what is the value of that—

Should he not have been able to get the sleepers through, one or other of the hundred causes which might occur, he is not liable to the penalty of a farthing per sleeper per diem for the delay. Clause 10 provides that is an essential condition of the contract that the steamer provided by the Administration for the conveyance of the sleepers shall first convey to Buenos Ayres a full and complete cargo of South African coal to be purchased and provided by the contractor. Clause 9 provides that the contractor shall provide an approved guarantee of a bank operating in South Africa. Looking at the conditions of this contract, it is an essential condition that the steamer shall take a cargo of coal and there is demurrage at the rate of £75 a day in case of default, the coal to be provided by the contractor and delivered on the steamer. If the contractor has no coal to deliver, is the Administration going to call upon him to deliver the coal? What is the value of that demurrage clause?

You are flogging a dead horse.

The whole thing depends upon the two questions, whether the contractor has the coal to sell or whether he has the sleepers to bring over. In the terms of that contract the matter really rests upon the supply of coal. If there is no coal to be supplied there will be no demurrage. Unless there is coal here, there will be no sending of steamers over to the other side, and I put it to the House that these demurrage clauses are perfectly valueless for having any binding effect on the contractor. The only other methods of dealing with this contract are under the penalty clause of a farthing per sleeper per day, which depends entirely upon the contractor being able to say that the circumstances are entirely beyond his control. Well, a contract of that sort, I do submit, is a contract of precious little value to the House. I am not forgetting that there is a guarantee clause, a guarantee which is based on entirely inadequate data for a contract of this kind. Let us look at another remarkable clause in this contract, No. 12—

I do submit that is a remarkable clause to put in the contract. It is a case of heads I win, tails you lose. I ask what is the value of the terms and conditions? And I ask whether that does not, in effect, put the contractor entirely upon velvet. Before this contract was made there was this memorandum in March in which the whole question is considered, and the general manager of railways says that Dr. Visser is negotiating with the Argentine for the purchase of these sleepers. I ask the Minister again how it is that on the 28th of May, when he was asked a specific question on this point, his only answer is—

What is the inference anyone would draw from that? The inference is that the Government had no responsible transaction of any kind in connection with the sleepers, and accidentally they had an engineer in the East and possibly he might go to the Argentine. I ask what right the Minister had to refrain from giving information. The point of the question was clearly and entirely as to the getting of sleepers from the Argentine or elsewhere, and the refusal to give a plain and straightforward answer is a matter which the House will have to justify upon its merits. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to put on the Table of the House not only all the documents we have here, consisting of the actual contract, and the memorandum of the general manager in March, but all other correspondence between himself and any official of his department with the contractors, so that we may see what the true genesis of the contract was. If it is not contained in the correspondence I would like the Minister to make a full statement as to the oral conversations that led up to this contract. We should also like to know what steps the Minister took to find out what the suitability and the qualifications of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) were to carry out these extensive negotiations. We were told the Government did not pay his expenses. I should like to know whether it is a fact that three or four coal companies made arrangements with the hon. member in connection with the coal, and if so, whether he was able to obtain those coal contracts entirely because of the fact that he had a sleeper contract before it; whether they were not made dependent upon this particular contract. These are questions about which I think the House is entitled to the fullest information. I repeat it is barely conceivable to have a more dangerous state of affairs than for a person who occupies the position that the hon. member occupies to have the advantage of a contract of this sort. I do not say he would take advantage, but let us consider the position of an ordinary man who gets a contract of this kind and who is chairman of a committee. It is true he cannot vote, but look at the important position he occupies on the Railway Committee. All sorts of possibilities which can arise in a situation like this come to the mind. I do maintain it is a most deplorable position, and one of the worst day’s work that the Government has done to enter into a contract of this sort. As far as we know, the Tender Board knows nothing about the contract, and the Railway Board knows nothing about it. If we do not know these things, it is simply because we have had no information from the Government. What we object to so strongly is the infinite possibilities of corruption of public life. It is not only a matter of the letter of the law. Take the corresponding situation in other parts of the world, in England and elsewhere, where they have a high regard for the dignity and the prestige of Parliament. Look at those cases where directors’ appointments have been the subject of criticizm. Why? Because they are contrary to the spirit in which government shall be carried on, contrary to the decency of government. It is for these reasons that we object most strenuously to contracts of this kind. It is not a question of whether corruption has taken place, or whether people have benefited under the contract or not, but whether you are lending yourself to a course of conduct such as the making of contracts of this nature, or any other course of conduct which is contrary to the true spirit and essence of public life, a course of conduct which, in time, may lead to the corruption and degradation of Parliament, which, above all things, should be an example of dignity and purity to the country.

I think we must admit that a discussion of this kind involves the personal position, if not the personal honour, of one of our members, and that we should realize that any question of this kind cannot, and should not, be a matter of party controversy. The humblest member of this House, whether he belongs to a large party or to a small party, should be able to know when a question of this kind is raised that the collective attitude of the House will be such that all the facts will be fairly taken into consideration, and nothing but a perfectly fair and impartial judgment will be arrived at, remembering that what this House will say will be reflected outside, and that its decision will very materially affect the position and probably the future of the member himself. I have tried to search for a rule to apply to the circumstances relating to the making of this particular contract. So far as the Act of Union is concerned, it does not afford us any guide in dealing with this particular question. Under the Standing Rules and Orders it is laid down that no member may take part in discussing or voting on any matter in which he has a personal interest, but the precise position of a member or a Minister who may contract with the Government is not dealt with. No doubt the provision which exists in England in this respect was deliberately omitted from the Act of Union. If it were applied to our own Union, it might very narrowly restrict the choice of candidates who wish to take part in the public life of the country. In 1911, when the Liberal Government was in power in England, there came before the House of Commons what was known as the Marconi contract scandal. Certain very well defined rules were referred to, and were finally in effect endorsed by the House of Commons, as representing what should be the rule to be observed, by certainly a Minister, and, I submit in this case, by a member who occupies so responsible a position as chairman of a standing committee of this House. The discussion in that case is referred to in Hansard, and in dealing with the position of the Minister three rules were laid down, firstly, that a Cabinet Minister should not in choosing his investments make use of any special and confidential information that might come to him in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, secondly, he should not invest in companies whose profits and dividends or profits were directly or indirectly derived from contracts entered into with the Government, and thirdly, a Minister should not receive any advantage direct or indirect from any person proposing to contract with the Crown. These were referred to by Mr. Cave, later Lord Cave, in moving the motion regretting the transactions of Ministers in connection with the American Marconi contract. There the subject of the inquiry arose from the fact that two Ministers of the Crown had received definite information from a director of the Marconi company, purchased shares in consequence in that company, and within a few days of the purchase made a substantial profit. It is interesting to know that when the Attorney-General of the day was dealing with his individual position with regard to this very motion he stated what he conceived should be the rules applicable to a case like the one under consideration. He said that he agreed that the rule which was closest to his case was that a Minister should not place himself in a position which might reasonably expose him, in the opinion of a fair-minded man, to the suspicion of corruption, even though his own conscience was clear that he had acted honestly and without corrupt motive. When towards the end of the debate the then Prime Minister was endeavouring to formulate a rule which he said he hoped would meet with the concurrence of the House, he said—

I do not think we could find a rule more suitable for dealing with the position of a member of this hon. House. It may be said that the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) is not in the position of a Minister, but I answer that in his position of chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours he is in an exceedingly responsible position which involves very close supervision of matters that come before the committee, and it places the chairman in a position where he may, when sitting on that committee or otherwise in contact with officers of that department, acquire information which might be valuable to him as an individual. It would be obvious that where a guardian of the public purse has to see that money is spent properly, is in his turn concerned in a contract under circumstances where he cannot possibly speak in favour of his duty because his interest speaks louder within him (as it must, human nature being what it is), a conflict of interest with duty must arise. I suggest the rule is one which we could apply to this particular case. The facts of the case have been fully referred to in the course of this discussion, and I need not go over them again. But I say that the hon. member in making that contract did stand in the position of a Minister, and applying that rule, it would be his duty to make a full disclosure of his interest, and stand aside while the transaction was being dealt with. If that was possible under the circumstances we do not know. In point of fact, the contract fell through, but the result we are bound to come to is—there was brought about a conflict between interest and duty which might conceivably have ended disastrously for the State, and in the responsibility for the making of that contract the hon. member and the Minister with him stand on an equal footing. I hope the Minister will adopt that rule when he speaks in reply to this debate. I think the House and country would be glad to hear that that rule is of the same force in the Union of South Africa as it is in the House of Commons. So far as this particular case is concerned, I cannot put it higher than that there has been a breach of that rule. I do not think there is any ground for making a statement that there has been corruption.

You are insinuating it.

I am not suggesting it. I do think the result of the discussion will be useful because it will show that there are not two standards of public morality. In the public service there are rules, the infringement of which involves degradation and dismissal from the service, with regard to the disclosure of information obtained by a public servant in the course of his duties as a public servant. An hon. member should not put himself in a position where in the judgment of fair-minded reasonable men there might be a suspicion of corruption in connection with a contract or other dealing.

Where is the suspicion?

If the contract went through and the hon. member netted a small commission of 5 per cent. on a turnover of half a million—£330,000 per annum for the sleepers, and I estimate the outward cargoes of coal would amount to something like £200,000 per annum, he might have secured an annual income of at least £25,000 for at least three years. If that had come to fruition the suspicion of a reasonable man would have been that the contract had been secured because of information that had come into the possession of the hon. member, because of his official position. Fortunately we need not go that far, and I do not want to suggest, in justice to the hon. member, that there was more than a breach of his fiduciary obligation. I hope the Minister will say quite definitely whether the rule in the House of Commons is applicable to members just as a similar rule is applicable to members of the public service. To reinforce my point that this matter should not be dealt with as a party matter, but one on which the collective judgment of the House should be brought to bear, I would like to quote from a speech made by the late Mr. Merriman in 1897 on a Bill to prohibit members of Parliament contracting directly or indirectly with a Government—

We should be careful not to allow this to be dealt with from a party point of view because it might react, and a majority might endeavour to break on the party wheel a member of á minority and condemn him without his having had a perfectly fair and impartial hearing of the case. There is only one other point I want to refer to—the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). I listened to that speech with great regret. I thought that that member, belonging to that band of younger South Africans, who instead of looking backwards were determined to look forward in this country. When he spoke of England being a decadent nation I thought one could bring to his attention one or two points he had overlooked. Notwithstanding a national debt of £8,000,000,000 there is one nation that is paying her debts, and that is this “doomed, dying” country. That country is paying £100,000 per diem for 62 years as the price in order to keep faith with those who lent money to it in a time of need. She said further that if America would write off the debt she owed to it, England would be prepared to extend the same facilities to her continental allies. One point which will appeal to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) is that this “doomed, dying” nation is expending to-day some £450,000,000 per annum on social services. Hon. members on my left will agree that that is no sign of a country marching to its doom. The hon. member who spoke in that slighting fashion of our senior partner in the British commonwealth of nations must have failed to read the report of the Imperial Conference, where we most deliberately took upon ourselves the obligation of maintaining that commonwealth and supporting the empire in all the ways we can in its unexampled position in the world. Now the hon. member appears to think that because, as he believes, Great Britain is of no further use to South Africa, it should be cast aside, like a sucked orange and that we should have recourse for mere material gain to some other unnamed nation. There is one circumstance he appears also to have forgotten—England won the Great War.

I did intend not to intervene on this debate, and would not have done so but for the extraordinary statement of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that I endorsed the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe).

I thought so by your smile.

I was not smiling at him, but you. I did not endorse his speech, although he uttered exactly the same sentiments I have heard since I was a small boy, that England was going to the dogs; but she has not. Hon. members opposite don’t object to his speech a bit—they welcome a speech like that.

Do you welcome a speech like that?

Such a speech as that quoting what is said by Dean Inge gives the profoundest delight to hon. members there, because it is part of their only stock-in-trade to take every single thing that is said by any member of this side in that spirit, and their newspaper reports will be headed—

The hon. member for Winburg makes his mistake in his estimate of the people in England, but they are different from hon. members opposite, for they are not sensitive, touchy folk, and when they see things going wrong they have shown a wonderful power of resilience.

Are you an interpreter of England?

A better one than you are. For 25 years I have been fighting this non-British sentiment, and some of us who don’t wag a flag are devoted to British traditions and are better representatives of real British traditions than are hon. members opposite. I warn the hon. member for Winburg not to judge the British people too much by some of these folk in this country who arrogate to themselves the right to be the only representatives of British sentiment.

Tell us what you think of his speech.

I have heard the sentiments he expressed ever since I was a small boy, but the pessimists are always wrong.

You are an optimist who hopes that it will go wrong.

What right have you to say that?

I heard his speech.

He said right through that he made these statements reluctantly, but there speaks the old Unionist, the old Progressive who has always traded upon the decent sentiments of the British section of this country for their own political ends. Against that idea, and against the prostitution of real attachment to the traditions of our country, I am fighting.

Do you agree with his sentiment that we should give no more contracts to England?

I hold that the accepted creed of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the orthodox creed of the day of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest is the most anti-national and anti-social creed, and incompatible with real sound national feeling. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would not pay a bigger price for an article because it happens to come from a particular country.

Do you agree with the hon. member’s sentiments?

I do not propose to answer any impudent question from the other side I am in possession of the floor, and I am going to say what I think, and not be put off. We know perfectly well that the hon. member for Winburg will be represented in every South African party newspaper throughout the country in big headlines as representing the sentiments of the Dutch-speaking population, and he will be misrepresented as gloating over the fact that in his opinion England is on the way to destruction. As to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), I have seen him wag the flag on every possible opportunity, and we know him. There are the greatest representatives of the British traditions. They will suspend the Constitution, upset Magna Charta and follow other traditions if it suits their political interests—

Come off the soapbox.

I am going to deal with another point. I came in while the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) was giving us a lecture on the proprieties and duties of members of Parliament, with that style of his, indicating that he was laying down what was the proper thing for a Minister to do.

Aren’t you lecturing now?

I went through this contract relating to the railway sleepers. One of the gibes of the Opposition is—

I expect he knows very little. That is his affair. But if I am buying anything, I am going to take very good care that the people who advise me see that I buy nothing but the very best. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) was not accusing anybody of corruption. Oh, no, “don’t nail his ear to the pump.” But the whole tenor of his speech was to convey the impression that he would like to accuse of corruption, and that he would like to give the impression that there was something smelly about this business. Why does he not propose a motion and say this was a corrupt transaction?

There was no transaction.

I have yet to learn that no member of Parliament may contract with the Government. I would like to know what hon. members opposite— those purists in politics—think of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who is very largely interested in South-West diamonds, entering into a contract under the Diamond Control Act. Is no member of Parliament to enter into any contract? I am not blaming the Minister. His duty is to see that the Railway Administration is protected. Is every contract laid on the Table? The hon. member thought he could get sleepers at 6s. 8½d., and the Railway Administration would then have made a very good bargain. I do blame the hon. member for Vrededorp, however, for not knowing that if he entered into such a contract he would give the people opposite a tremendous opportunity for making propaganda against the Government. Let any other hon. member or any member of the public offer the Railway Administration sleepers at 6s. 8½d., and the Administration will be only too pleased to get them.

What is the Tender Board for?

Every member of the Tender Board gave his opinion of the contract. The Minister actually stated it in this House. The chief officials were members of the Tender Board, and they all gave their approval to the tender.

Was the hon. member’s contract submitted to the board?

The Minister will deal with that. The right hon. gentleman will allow me to speak. I am not going to take any notice of his grasshopper interruptions. The Railway Administration was carefully safeguarded. The hon. member (Dr. Visser) went to the Argentine, tried to get sleepers on that contract, but could not.

On that contract he went to the coal people.

That is a lie.

The Railway Administration took every possible precaution to see that the prices were advantageous to the Administration. Under these same terms and conditions it will be open to anyone, a member of this House or outside, to approach the Railway Administration, and ask them to do business on these terms, and if it suits the Administration, all this House has to do is to see that there has been no special favouritism given to members of this House or anything else that would not be extended to the public. I think the hon. member was ill-advised, because he must have known perfectly well, as we know, that—

what is done on the other side in diamonds is legitimate, but whatever we do on this side will be blazoned to the world. They have their guns, and we must not make any targets for them. The reading of those extracts of what a Minister must or must not do leads to the only inference that the Minister of Railways has been transgressing the line laid down in these things. In this matter the Minister was in no way concerned, and no profit, direct or indirect, accrued to the Minister. I wish my friend had not spoken like that; it will not do England any harm. We must take care; he may be right, but the people of England are not one-fiftieth part as touchy as our friend across the way.

Save us from our friends.

The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) made an accusation against Natal that it was only a coolie and native reserve. It is a pity for the Union that there are not more coolie and native reserves. Last year, according to the general manager’s report, there were 12,481 miles of railways in operation in South Africa, and of these 1,378 were in Natal, of which 1,130 were 3 ft. gauge and the rest 2 ft., or 11.8 per cent. of the total mileage. The total tonnage carried last year was 21,072,000, and of that Natal’s share was 10,625,000, or 89,000 tons more than half of the total tonnage of the Union of South Africa. The railway running to the north coast is 220 miles in length, and it increased its tonnage by 1,220,000, or an extraordinary increase of 5,545 tons per open mile. Does the hon. member know that the sugar land of Natal is only a narrow strip along the coast, and that it provided nearly one and a half million tons of cane, and we also carried 240,000 tons of sugar and 60,000 tons of molasses. That is not taking into account 65,000 ions exported overseas, and 300,000 tons of wattle bark and wattle wood exported. Not only that, but the Port of Durban handled 1,717,000 tons of cargo last year, more than the total aggregate of the other ports of the Union put together, Table Bay, Algoa Bay, Mossel Bay and Buffalo Harbour. It is a pity you people talk so much and don’t go and do a little work, like the Natal people. The hon. member for Winburg knows nothing about Natal. He had better come and stay there for a week. I won’t take him for a fortnight, because the last man I asked to come for a fortnight I buried after nine years.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I do not think that on this side we can allow an attack to be made on an hon. member for discussing an economic question. We cannot permit, as the result of his dealing with an economic question, a racial and personal attack to be made on him. It seems to me that when a party is reduced to taking up such an attitude instead of producing counter arguments, then it proves that party politics are bankrupt. I want to say that we have no intention, any more than the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), of using the parlous condition of England to cause any racial feeling. The hon. member quoted the view of a man whose loyalty cannot be doubted. Prominent English citizens and economists describe the position in England as an economic crisis, and why may not hon. members on this side express their views when they deal with an economic problem? I want to say, in beginning, that I want to make a few quotations from English writers whose loyalty cannot be doubted, but at the same time I want to add that that I do not want to excite race feeling.

The hon. member must remember that the House is not discussing the position of England, but railway matters.

I submit to your ruling, but hon. members opposite have made speeches about the economic points mentioned by the hon. member for Winburg.

The hon. member must confine himself to railway matters.

Then I just want to point out that even British economists state that England cannot supply its own demands, but has to place orders abroad, and articles daily appear in the press about it. That is one of the causes why we are justified in placing orders outside of England. In the November number of the “English Review,” an English professor discusses the economic inability of England to supply its own requirements, and hon. members can read it for themselves if they doubt it. I can also refer hon. members to the book on Imperial Economics, by Moon. Then I regret the personal attack made on an hon. member of the House. With reference to the arguments used by the Opposition about railway matters. I should like to say a few things. The first is that it is strange that the people who were for fifteen years in office and who for a series of ten years made a failure of the railway finances and had deficits, should not take it upon themselves to act as instructors to the Government which up to the present has had a magnificent record. The first page of the Auditor-General’s report shows that during the aforesaid ten years of the S.A.P. Government, there was only a surplus one year, and that in the other nine years there were deficits. The accumulated deficit was fully £5,000,000. As they are now daring to attack the Minister of Railways and Harbours about the railway finances, I want to refer them to the way they messed things in the past. This, of course, does not mean that the time may not come when we ourselves may have a railway deficit. And as there is an attack now being made in this connection on the administration of the railways. I think we should take into account the condition the railways are in. How many contingencies have not arisen for which no one is responsible? In the first place there was the shortage in the mealie harvest which reacted on the railways In addition, as a result of continuous drought, there was much freight which was carried at unpayable rates or free. I quote the instances which are given by the Auditor-General. The Railway Administration has carried at very reduced rates wheat, maize and flour to Calitzdorp, Ladismith and other districts, and many millions have been carried at particularly low rates from the districts suffering most from drought to the north. If the Minister of Agriculture sees fit to proclaim a district as drought stricken, then the Minister of Railways and Harbours is ipso facto compelled to apply the lower rate. If this year or next year there is possibly a deficit, then it can surely be said that the people have had the services which cannot be calculated in L.S.D. A remark which I particularly felt was a statement by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), in which he accused the Government and the Railway Administration of not doing its duty in carrying agricultural produce to the market. I think the facilities which are to-day granted by the Railway Administration for carrying produce from the interior to the towns and to the nearest market compare very favourably with those granted under the previous Government. The hon. member stated that we kept the produce on the land, but he did not prove that, and cannot do so. The allegation is untrue, if it is not unworthy. In the first place, I want to point out that the Administration has now established motor services over 5,400 miles to carry perishable products from the countryside to the nearest railway stations. The services which were not prominently commenced by the last Government have been extended and are much appreciated to-day on the countryside. In my constituency there are four such road motor services, and after their establishment five more applications were made, because those services are appreciated, and it is felt that perishable produce can be taken in this way to the market. This produce went to waste in the past. Much has also been done with reference to the transport of deciduous and citrus fruits to the towns and to the markets, and the rates have from time to time been reduced, and extra trouble taken by the Administration with regard to the transport. Consequently, nothing remains of the argument of the hon. member. As regards fruit, the position to-day is much better than three years ago. In 1920 or 1921 there was the delay, moreover, in connection with the maize traffic, when the most favourable time for the countryside market passed because the Railway Administration could not make adequate provision for the carriage of maize to the coast. I repeat that if an attack is made on those lines, it is not only untrue, but unworthy. When the debate is used to make an attack on the policy of civilized labour on the ground that the Government is not going economically to work, it can be safely left to the good sense of the people, which we have always respected. The political party which in our opinion neglects its duty in respect of the civilized portion of the population, and has permitted people to go on relief works and lose their self-dependence, is now protesting against this Government following a different system. It should first sweep before its own door. To me at any rate it is an encouraging sign that even the Auditor-General in his report has to acknowledge that, in spite of the fact that 10,000 civilized labourers are employed by the State, it has only cost £90,000 extra. We have repeatedly said, and I, as a representative of the people state, that not one of us wish people to be only employed for maintenance. We expect that every man employed by the State so that he can make an honest living and maintain his family will do his best to give his best services to the State. Unfortunately, not only in the towns, but also on the countryside, it is said that a section of the labourers employed by the Railway Administration and by other departments can do more for the money they receive from the State. How far this is true there will be a difference of opinion, but no one will deny that when the State pays a salary or wages, the persons employed should give their best services for the benefit of the country. I hope that the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and more particularly the Minister of Labour, will see to it that an economic wage is paid for economic work, and that they will say that the wage must be earned by the labourers. I hope, however, that they will not be frightened from their present policy by the attitude of the Opposition. They can rest assured that the people approve of them policy, and they need not bother their heads about the Opposition attack.

In regard to the lament able defence put up by the Minister of Defence, I should only like to say, as one who has known him for a long time, that I never thought to see such a painful exhibition on the part of the Minister. I little thought that I should ever hear him being apologist in chief for actions on the part of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) and the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), which he cannot but reprobate in his heart of hearts. He sees nothing wrong in a contract which the statute law of every other dominion of the Empire expressly forbids, and he has here to-night stated that he sees nothing wrong in that contract, and that it is a perfectly proper agreement. The whole principle that lies behind the restriction against members of Parliament becoming contractors to the Government is the great principle of the independence of Parliament. Therefore, I can only take it that the Minister of Defence is here not to advocate the independence of Parliament, but to be a party to the under-mining of that independence, because that must be the only construction we can place upon his words. If we follow the history of this matter in the other dominions, what do we find? In the Commonwealth of Australia the prohibition is very clear indeed, that the election is rendered void of any member of Parliament who has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the public service of the commonwealth other than as a member of an incorporated company consisting of not more than 25 persons. That completely disposes of the Minister’s somewhat cheap argument that the association of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) with the Diamond Control Board would come under this prohibition. He will find that in Canada, after the union of Upper and Lower Canada, an Act for better securing the independence of the Legislative Assembly was introduced, and it formed the basis of all subsequent legislation on this point in Canada. Legislation proceeded from 1843 up to 1857, but I wish to draw particular attention to a series of incidents which occurred in 1877 in Canada which show a very strong family resemblance to the kind of transaction that the hon. member for Vrededorp had in his mind to carry out. In 1877 in Canada attention was drawn in the House of Assembly to certain cases in which section 3 of the Act had evidently been infringed by members. I should like to read section 3 of the Act to show how express and complete the prohibition in that country is against any sort of contract of the kind that we are discussing to-night—

Among the people who had infringed this rule there was a Mr. Currier, a member of a firm who had supplied some timber to the Department of Works. Mr. Norris was one of the proprietors of a line of steamers on the Lakes which had carried rails for the Government. Mr. Burpee was a member of a firm which was supplying certain iron goods to Government railways. Mr. Moffatt was interested in, and had been paid for, the transport of rails for the Government. It appears, therefore, that railway material has proved a source of temptation to members of Parliament elsewhere. Let us contrast the action of these gentlemen with that of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). Both Mr. Currier and Mr. Norris, believing that they had unwittingly infringed the law, resigned their seats during the session. There is no such alacrity on the part of the hon. member for Vrededorp to give the good men and true of Vrededorp the opportunity of deciding whether this little slip still qualifies or disqualifies him from representing them in this House and in the Imperial Conference. There is not a dominion in the whole of the Empire in which this is not expressly forbidden, and when a select committee was appointed by the other place in 1911 to consider this very question it was held by that committee that in view of the prohibition in other dominions it was desirable that an Act should be introduced dealing with the matter, but not in the South Africa Act. One can only regret that was not carried out, but the fact remains we have here the only spokesman of the Government so far, the Minister of Defence, glorying in this impropriety on the part of the Government and upholding it, although it is very well known that the whole principle lying behind the prohibition is the securing of the independence of Parliament. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Harbours to a question asked by a Mr. C. W. Malan in 1923. This gentleman had a passion for information in regard to sleepers. He wanted to know how many sleepers were bought in South Africa and how many were imported from abroad during each of the years 1920, 1921, 1922; what was the average price paid during those years for (a) South African sleepers; (b) imported sleepers; whether there still existed any contracts and obligations binding the Administration to purchase sleepers abroad and, if so, what was the nature of those obligations. That is what we want to know, but apparently we were very wrong in wanting to find out. The question also asked whether in the years 1920, 1921, 1922, the Administration bought all sleepers for sale in the Union, and what was the present policy of the Administration in regard to this matter; whether all available sleepers in South Africa were bought; what was the price at present paid for South African sleepers and whether any sleepers were being imported at present and, if so, at what price were they imported into South Africa? We have a most wonderful array of information here. In regard to the important matter of the contracts abroad, this gentleman was told this—

Times have changed. What was then a horrible thing on the part of the S.A.P. is to-day something of a virtue on the part of the Minister himself. He told me the other day that the department bought in the foreign market as much as they could whenever opportunities presented themselves.

If there are no South African sleepers available.

I accept the Minister’s explanation of that, but I am pointing out how times have changed. When I was venturesome enough to ask if anyone was going to South America I was not given the answer I expected and was entitled to, but an answer which one cannot call disingenuous, one calculated to give the impression to this House that the Administration had no intention of sending anyone to buy sleepers in the Argentine.

Did we send anyone?

The Minister again avails himself of a mere quibble and subterfuge. The idea that he was not responsible for the journey of the hon. member to the Argentine and for his traffic among the dagoes there is ridiculous, and I am surprized at a responsible Minister of the Crown taking refuge in such a petty subterfuge. We come now to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). With that pride in the Labour Party which always possesses him when he is on his feet, and with that convenient memory which never deserts him, the hon. member told us how the Labour Party had striven in season and out of season for cleanliness in public life, especially the Transvaal Province, whence he comes. But he has forgotten about Pieter Deys who was convicted of bribery and was turned out contumeliously; he also forgot about Daniel Dingwall, who had his hands soiled with bribes, and was also contumeliously put out. We now come to the town council, and there was Mr. Jimmy Green, who was also convicted before the courts of having received bribes. The hon. member endeavoured to put an entirely wrong construction on the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) had received a retainer from His Excellency the High Commissioner for work done in connection with the Protectorates. I should like to emphasize, in case he does not know it, that the Protectorates have nothing to do with the Union, and are entirely separate entities. The High Commissioner, in his capacity as such, has as much to do with the ordering of affairs in the Union as the Ameer of Afghanistan. The hon. member refuses to withdraw the imputation he made. I am sorry, because I looked upon him as one who would not wilfully put a wrong construction on anything or make any wilful misrepresentation of that sort.

I never made any misrepresentation.

Do I understand the hon. member to impute wilful misrepresentation to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston)?

I withdraw the word “wilful.” But I say he was unfortunate in not availing himself of the opportunity to withdraw—

I have nothing to withdraw. That is why I refuse to withdraw.

I only want to point out that the High Commissioner’s appointments are entirely separate, and are apart from any made by the Union of South Africa; and in that capacity the High Commissioner does not represent the Union, and therefore the construction put on that appointment—that he was contracting with the Government—was a wrong and unfair one. The hon. member, if he wishes to maintain the reputation for fairness he has had hitherto, will withdraw that.

I made no accusation, and have nothing to withdraw.

In other dominions where the strictest prohibition prevails against contracts of that kind, in a case which occurred in British Columbia the courts refused an injunction where counsel had received fees and had undertaken to act for a province on the ground that by law no fee could be demanded by a lawyer for services rendered; so that lawyer’s fees stand on quite a different footing from the contract we are discussing this evening. I am sorry the Rev. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has left, because I should like to remonstrate with him because of the manner in which he referred to my native province. It was not a speech made in a heated moment. We could all see he had well prepared his brief, or his sermon, shall I say; he did not come to the firstly, secondly and thirdly, but he had prepared it on those lines undoubtedly. He gloated in his ignorance over the mushroom growth of England’s industries, and out of the depths of his ignorance endeavoured to predict that she was a finished country and therefore we were not called upon or entitled to deal with her any longer—when I listened to all that, and to his remarks about the province from which I come I regretted that it was still possible for a gentleman, with a heart so filled with hatred, to tiptoe into a pulpit and take the name of the Prince of Peace, for his doing so makes a blasphemous mockery of a sacred office. There is not a man in my province who to-morrow will not reprobate the speech of the hon. member and hold in the utmost contempt the apology of the Minister of Defence for such utterances. In that I include both English-speaking and Dutch-speaking people of the province. When the hon. member attacks and describes the province as—

we have every right to resent it. I ask the hon. member, is this the way to popularize the efforts of the Prime Minister to try to solve the native question? When, as a matter of fact, the Minister aimed in his Bill at releasing further large areas for the purpose of native lands, is this the way to reconcile the people of Natal (who are opposed to this scheme) with the proposal of the Prime Minister; To-night he (the hon. member) has given us a glimpse of the bitterness with which he has carried on, not only his administrations outside this House, but his duties inside this House.

A wrong inference.

If the hon. member will come here in a manly way and say it is a wrong inference I will accept his statement. We were in a position, this evening, to note the tone, manner and bearing of the hon. member as he was divesting himself of these remarks, and there is no man on this side of the House who was not affronted, and not a man worth his salt in South Africa who will not reprobate the remarks of the hon. member.

We do not. We are not all politicians.

Surely the hon. member knows that this constant placing of contracts with other countries than Great Britain has formed the subject of questions in the British Parliament, and it is a matter which naturally causes a considerable amount of concern in that country. He seems to forget, too, that the stock in trade of his party when it was out of office was its anti-British propaganda. Let any man in his sober senses read the Votes and Proceedings, 1914-1923, and he would be shocked and staggered at the manner in which Great Britain was decried and the interests of her enemies and other foreign countries were espoused by hon. members opposite. To-day, however, the hon. member whines and whimpers because his party is suspected of not having changed its spots. We believe that it has no wish to do so; that it prefers to remain spotty and rabid. Hon. members opposite have made their beds. Let them lie upon them. For a long course of years they have attacked the old country. They have endeavoured to break the ties of Empire and let them not complain if, having secured the reputation it continues to leave to them.

Hon. members opposite now have the temerity to speak about the sins of the Nationalist party and to raise a smoke screen, but they clearly forget what happened in their day. They only want to make political capital out of this and in connection with the contract for sleepers to frighten the farmers. But nothing took place. No contract was carried out. An individual came to the Government and offered to obtain sleepers cheaply, and a proof that the Government was careful is that the person could not get the sleepers. Now hon. members want to make out that great damage has been suffered by the contract. I might almost compare the hon. members with a herd of ostriches. The ostriches tread quite a little path along the fence and try to get out. After their futile attempts they go away, but subsequently return to the fence and try again. Sometimes they forget that they cannot get out. That agreement did not cost the Government a penny. What, however, did the previous Government do for us? They imported a certain Mr. Littlejohn Phillip from England, and paid him a salary of £1,000 per month. That Mr. Phillip had to build a grain elevator and he went to work in such a way that we lost £250,000 because the foundations collapsed. The flour purchased by the Government cost us nearly £40,000, and we are still constantly engaged in paying the deficit of the last Government. Yet the hon. members come and make a noise about sleepers which were not even bought and a transaction which did not cost a penny. We have to pay £4,000,000 off the accumulated deficits, and I just casually remember what the former member for Riversdale did. He bought ground for the Government, his own ground, and the £70,000 which was paid for it, has now to be written down to£ 35,000. How does that look?

The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) has talked of a smoke screen. I think he feels the blows which the Government is getting to-day from this side of the House, and I think the country takes a great interest in what is being said this afternoon on this side of the House. I do not want to go into details, but just to say that I deplore the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). I thought that the time for such speeches was past, and I think it was not right to make such an attack in this place on the feelings of persons sympathetic towards the English. I just want to say something about the new Cape Central Railway which was taken over by the Government There were great rejoicings when that was done and the people of those districts expected a great deal. They are still waiting for the extraordinary things which were to happen. The position of the station halts and waiting rooms is deplorable. There is not a single proper waiting room along the whole line.

We know it and so does the Minister.

I thought the hon. member would support me. We have trains there consisting of 10 to 12 vehicles, and platforms which are only one-forth of the length of the train. Passengers, and especially old people, find the greatest inconvenience in ascending or descending, and I fear there will be serious accidents. Then there are great delays to trains on that line. I have here a number of letters which I wanted to hand over to the Minister, but he must have been very busy the other day, because he said I could come and see him later on. The letter from the Bredasdorp Co-operative Farmers Association, especially, complains about the delay experienced in the consignment of fertilizer. They say that they ordered 16,000 bags of fertilize, that they only received 3,900 bags and have long being waiting for the balance. The factory writes them that in consequence of a block on the line nothing can be done. The rest of the fertilizer is somewhere on the road at some station or other. I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce at Heidelberg about delays, and other letters from Swellendam. We still hope that the Minister will realize the great expectations which we cherished when the line was taken over. I do not think that I am wrong when I say that out of 365 days in the year the trains are late 300 days, some-times hours late. The reason of that is of course defective engines, and if people have to wait on the stations in unsuitable waiting rooms it is very unpleasant. I should also like to ask when expresses will be run on this line. It takes about six hours from Worcester to Swellendam, a distance of 85 miles, and only 41 hours from Cape Town to Worcester, a distance of 108 miles. It will be said that the sleepers are not strong enough, but new sleepers have already been laid nearly up to Swellendam, and I hope that we shall very soon have expresses. I hope, also, that the rates on the line will be reduced.

What about wheat? You have sent 5,000 bags of wheat at a much lower rate than formerly.

The hon. member has never yet seen 5,000 bags of wheat. The rates have been reduced on some things and increased on others. The line is still regarded as a branch line in so far as rates are concerned, but I hope we shall soon have main line rates.

I wish in particular to refer to the fruit traffic and shipment. In any criticisms I may offer I do it in the spirit of helpfulness as I know the railways are out to do their best for us in the fruit traffic. Notwithstanding this, many mistakes are made, and they are made through a want of knowledge, mostly, I should say entirely from a want of knowledge. I first wish to refer to the handling of export fruit at the docks. As we know, just at present a considerable quantity of fruit is being held up. There has been a glut of fruit at the docks. I am not going to blame the control board for the present glut of fruit at the docks, because I do not wish to blame anybody when I have not got full knowledge, but I do claim that the control board ought to have kept in touch with the fruit farmers, which they have not done. We have been asked to pack as much as we possibly can, because the freight is offering. You think that fruit which you send will go forward at once, but you find that a glut exists at the docks, causing considerable loss. For this I blame the control board for not having remained in touch with the farming community. They ought to have known, as we saw in advance, that the estimate originally given could not be anything else but out, because it was well known that the maturing of your fruit this year was retarded for about 15 days on account of the climatic conditions. After they had advised us to pack as much as we possibly could, the control board gave us no further information and there we find to our surprise that the fruit, instead of going forward, is being held up at the docks and that there is not sufficient freight offering. I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister and it is that he should get on with the mail contract; therein lies our salvation. The very success of your fruit industry and your other perishable products is dependent on getting regular weekly shipments from here to the markets overseas, and this can only be got by regular shipments through your mail contractors and I would like to hurry the Minister on in arranging a mail contract which specially provides for the lifting of all our perishable products. If you have that, you can do away with your very expensive control board. You would also be able to get rid of a good bit of the expensive part of the Fruit Exchange. I have got a little statement here which shows how the expense in shipping our fruit has grown during recent years. Whereas in 1914 it cost you 1s. a box of grapes for the handling here and the freight, it costs you to-day a fraction over 1s. 11d., nearly double. With the cost growing like this, we are soon going to get beyond the margin of payability.

Hear, hear.

If we get a mail contract fixed up for the lifting of our perishable products, we shall know for, at any rate, a period, where we are.

Where are we?

The hon. member who made that interjection cares very little about the rest of the farming community. There are a good many of your Transvaal farmers who export fruit also. They will be in it directly. They will know that, instead of having a profit, they will have a loss when their fruit is held up at the docks. I wish to offer a few other criticisms to the Minister also with a view of helping him. As I said before, the Railway Department is out to do whatever it can for the fruit industry and where it goes wrong it is owing to a want of knowledge on the part of the officials. To-day a great deal can be done to ensure landing your fruit at the docks in a better condition than is sometimes the case. You have a fruit traffic inspector. I would like to know whether he reports every case where he finds that fruit boxes have fallen off the racks and lie scattered about the floor, this very often happens. It is not through carelessness in loading, hut it is often through a want of knowledge in loading. New men are sometimes appointed at the fruit stations who know nothing about the handling of fruit and while they are learning your fruit grower loses. There is another thing through which he suffers, and that is shunting operations, this could be done with more care and if your station masters and fruit inspectors had to report where they observe instances of rough shunting, there would be much less of it. There is no reason why the shunting and coupling of fruit trucks should be done differently to the shunting and coupling in connection with passenger trains. You often find after shunting in the yard, boxes or baskets have been knocked off the racks. If your fruit inspector or station master had to report each case of rough shunting you would very soon find a better condition of things. I have drawn the Minister’s attention to this, and I hope he will do something to get on with the mail contract, because on this depends the very life or death of the fruit industry, and in regard to the railway matters I have mentioned, I hope that these will have his attention.

I want to refer to a matter of some importance to the maize grower one to which I alluded last session. The position is that the railways are practically useless to the maize-growing farmer for the transport of his maize, the reason being that the time allowed him in which to load a truck is limited to a period not exceeding twelve hours. If he is not able to complete his loading in twelve hours he is required to pay demurrage. The result of that regulation is that the farmer is obliged to dispose of his maize to speculators, who have warehouse accommodation, and so he is not able to get the price he should get. I know there are difficulties in the way; rolling Stock is limited, but it must be perfectly plain to the Minister that to expect a farmer living say ten miles out of the town to fill a truck with mealies in twelve hours when probably he has only one wagon, is expecting him to do something which is impossible. I think an extension of the period to 24 hours would be much appreciated by the farmers, and would enable them to use the railways more than they do at the present time. There is also the unfortunate plight of civilized labourers on the railways to which I wish to refer. It may surprise the Minister to know that a number of these labourers are practically starving to-day. Their earnings are not sufficient to provide them with food, and I am informed they are to some extent dependent on charity. There is no housing accommodation provided for them by the administration and they certainly haven’t the means to provide it for themselves out of their meagre pay. The matter was brought to my notice in the form of a letter from Mr. Fred Pearce, whom I have known for something like 30 years; and who, with his wife, have interested themselves in charitable work for many years. He writes—

The letter also states that the writer sees that provision is made at Umbilo on the lines suggested and he asked if similar provision cannot be made at Ladysmith. These young men have to depend on a measure of charity, and add to the burden of charitable institutions. This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue, and the administration should provide housing accommodation and pay the men sufficient to enable them to get three meals a day and clothe themselves. Their impecunious condition drives them to consort with people who are a had example to them and whose influence must have a demoralizing effect on them. If the Minister cannot see his way to pay these men a wage which will enable them to pay for three meals a day and suitably house themselves, then it is time he revised the Government’s so-called civilized labour policy.

I rise to appeal to the Minister not only to increase the manufacture of commodities, but also, when he is building and equipping his workshops, to give facilities to young South Africans to learn the arts and crafts, so that they will be able to man the railway workshops in South Africa. It is a shame that in 1919 and 1920, when I was a member of the Juvenile Advisory Board, that thousands of boys desired to serve their apprenticeship in the different trades and crafts, vet to-day we find that mechanics are being imported. I believe I am correct in stating that carpenters have had to be imported to work on the extension of the Parliament buildings, whereas if young South Africans had had an opportunity of learning the trade six or seven years ago, they would have been able to do mechanic work to-day. There are very few workshops where youths are able to learn trades, particularly the carpentry trade. Therefore it should be the function of the railways to give greater facilities than they have done in the past for lads to learn trades. During the debate the argument was used, particularly by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) and others, about the lack of development on the railways since the present Government took office. Yet we find that in the last year of office of the late Government it articled only 31 apprentices, whereas this Government, in its first complete year of office, took on 237 apprentices. I don’t believe we are doing as much as the Government should, but it is ridiculous in the extreme for any hon. member to assert that the present Government has not improved on the methods adopted by the late Government. When this Government came into power, there were only 537 registered apprentices in the whole of the Union; to-day there are 5,600, the Government therefore doing a great deal to turn young South Africans into craftsmen. We also appreciate the great improvements which the Government has brought about in the position of the railway servants. It is true the railway workers have not had their grievances removed; anyhow, we have increased the pensions: for instance, a workman who is paid £360 a year receives a pension of £240. As an old member of the Pensions Committee, it wounded me to see that under the old Government, men who had spent 25 years in the service of the State were receiving only £4 or £5 a month as pension.

How?

By having a Minister with human feelings and not one who looks on the railways merely from an £ s. d. basis. The present Minister has a great deal of leeway to make up as regards the equipment of workshops and I hope and trust he will not only carry on the work he is engaged in but that he will travel much quicker than he has done in the last two years in the development and equipment of the works. This cry about South Africa importing railway material from foreign countries could be abolished if only the workshops were put on a sound basis. I realize the late Government are to blame and we have a duty to perform and that is to make up the leeway and to carry out that policy which the Government stands for, that the needs of South Africa shall be produced in South Africa by South Africans.

Hear, hear!

Play the game.

I am dad to hear the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) cry “Hear, hear.”

You have made a convert, Charlie.

In the report of the Railways and Harbour Board of 1921 on page 4 we read—

This state of affairs is all the more to be deplored when S. A. party members, especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) says “hear, hear” when I advocate a policy of South African goods by South Africans. I think he should apologize especially he being one of the leaders of the South African party who during the last two or three days have been attacking this Government because they changed the policy of the hon. member who dismissed in three years over 12,000 workers.

Make it 24,000.

No. Your own report 1921 states 12,448. This Government has put 13,000 more workers on the railways of South Africa than there were in 1924. They tell you expenditure has increased. Certainly it has increased and I am very proud of the fact it has increased.

It is going into the right pockets now.

In 1924 instead of paying South Africans for working on the railways we had over 10,000 on the relief works, to-day we have only 2,000, and 13,000 more workers are on the railways doing useful work for the country. If the expenditure has really increased so has the production in the workshops. I may state that commodities which are manufactured in South Africa are manufactured in a way which not only makes the commodities stronger and more durable, owing to the fact of goods being manufactured overseas they have to be taken to pieces, being imported in sections, and, as every practical man knows, work cannot be durable when it has been imported in sections also in the case of woodwork to the fact that during the journey overseas the different tenants and mortices, vary in contraction to such an extent that there is no woodwork will stand the strain which is imported in sections, compared with goods manufactured in South Africa. Not only that, but when we import our requirements from oversea we are leaving 50 per cent. of the value of that commodity in the country of its manufacture. It is acknowledged by all experts that whether it is a railway truck, an engine or a pair of boots, 50 per cent. of the value of that commodity to the consumer or the user is paid out in the form of wages and profits, or in other words, a little over 50 per cent. is left in the country of manufacture in the form of wages and profits, whereas when an article is manufactured in this country the full value of that commodity is circulated amongst the community and to the benefit of all concerned. Irrespective of any patriotic motives, the South African Party insist that the railways should be cartried on business lines. I maintain that the true business lines are to look after the people of this country, not after the people of other countries, but to find work for the people of this country, which I am pleased to see that this Government has done to the extent of 13,000 and I hope and trust that it will go on and increase the personnel of the railways. The S.A. party cry is that the Civil Service and the railway staffs are increasing. Yes, and they are doing more work than ever they did. We are extending our railways and manufacturing more of our commodities. I am pleased to know that we have on the Railway Board a gentleman who represents the ordinary business and farming community, that we have on that board a gentleman who has served as an artisan on the railways of this country, and also a gentleman who has been on the salaried staff of the railways of this country, and I believe that they are keeping in closer touch with the needs of the people than would be possible if we were to put retired politicians on that board, as the South African Party Government did. I would throw out a suggestion to the Minister, and that is that he should ally with that board an efficient mechanical inspector so as to keep the Minister and the board in touch with what is happening. With the reports that have been circulated in regard to engines, etc., I think it is very necessary that the Minister should have an inspector under his control, so that he should be kept in touch not only with the mechanical side of the railways, but also with the workers and any grievances which they may have. I know that the Minister is a very humane man, in fact I think that he has been, to a certain extent, a little more humane than he should have been in some directions.

Surely not!

However, that is a good fault and I hope and trust that he will carry on in that spirit, and that is to put human life and advancement before £ s. d.

I regret the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is not here because I very much regret his speech this afternoon. If I may refer to the monument erected at Delville Wood in memory of those who fell in the great war, in the centre archway is a bronze statue. I cannot understand why the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is laughing.

Because it is perfectly ridiculous. Fancy bringing that rubbish in!

The spirit of South Africa is depicted in that bronze sculpture. The figure is a restive horse being controlled by a Dutchman on the one side and an Englishman on the other, with their hands held clasped over the back. This representing the ideal combination of the two races within the Union of South Africa. That is a wonderful conception of what we in South Africa are striving for. Having said that, I will go on to railway matters. It has occurred to me there is something wrong with the framing of the estimates of big works that Parliament is asked to vote money for. Over a million Of money has been spent over the original estimate on the electrification scheme. The grain elevator system has already cost a million more than originally estimated; now we are told it is to cost another £400,000. With regard to branch railways, all the railways that have been opened since 1923 have shown a joss. I think there is something wrong in the estimates of these branch railways. Coming to the latest line, M’Tuba Tuba to Pongola, Parliament voted £400,000 for that line. Now we are told it is to cost £200,000 more. £113,000 of that amount represents the excess cost of the bridge over the Pongola. The Pongola River is known to all South Africans as a flood river. What data did the Government get to ascertain the kind of structure that was necessary? It is a very important matter to the country—estimates are brought here, and in nearly every case they are very considerably exceeded. I want to convince the Minister and the House that the port of Durban is suffering very seriously because of the absence of further deep-water berths. The harbour berthage has not been increased for the last ten years, and the tonnage of ships entering the harbour and importations have doubled. You derive greater revenue from the port of Natal than any other Union port, therefore it is worth having money spent upon it. The Minister, I believe, quite understands that owing to the skill of the port officials, they have been able to handle some of these large steamers, but at great expense to the owners, and with very-great difficulty. I would also like to say that, although it may be a hardy annual, the coal industry at certain periods has to suffer very seriously owing to an absence of sufficient truckage. I know it is quite a common thing to say that is due to the past Government, but I think the present Government should have the plant to be able to cope with the present trade, and so save tremendous costs to the shipowners and the country. I see the Minister is smiling at this, because, I suppose, he has heard it so often. I do not want him to smile but to take it seriously, because it is a serious matter.

I just want to say a few words about the fruit which is rejected for export. A shipper in my district exported 1,033 boxes between the 12th and 19th February, and they remained from 9 to 14 days in the cold storage. The answer which appeared in the papers to-day to the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is not accurate. Then I will say that it is alleged that the chief inspector rejected the plums on instructions from the export of perishable produce control board. I have here an inspection report of a farmer in my district. Pears were passed, but 67 boxes of plums were not. The inspector wrote in the margin that the plums were rejected on the instructions of the Board of Control, as the plums for shipping were commencing to get bad. How can they know that the plums for shipping were commencing to become bad?

That was the experience with former shipments.

There are different ways of packing. The jumbled packing is bad, and fruit will spoil, but in other cases the packing was so good that to-day the fruit could still be exported in the same way. I admit that the Board of Control was in many cases right to reject fruit; I think that in the case to which the Minister refers rain had got to the fruit, but fruit which is packed in wood-wool ought to be given a chance to go through. I also think the Minister must admit that it is a pity that in many cases ships’ accommodation is cancelled. I also wish to support what the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) said in connection with contracts for shipment. We can ship by various lines, but so far as fruit in cold storage is concerned, one ought to be able to depend that it is dispatched by every mail boat that comes here. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the trucks which are sent to the various stations. I have seen trucks arriving in my district for the carriage of fruit intended for export, and out of which a full scotch cart of manure was taken. I can assure the Minister that stable manure gives off much ammonia, and I think it is especially injurious to fruit.

Did you bring it to the notice of the station master?

Yes, the truck was immediately cleansed, but the station master has only one man there to do it, and I do not see why trucks should come from other places and be cleansed at our station. I am sorry that the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) is not here, but it seems to me that he already very much regrets that contract. I want to mention a case of a councillor who had some trouble because he wanted to assist the council. A town council which required money and could not get it was assisted by one of its members saying that his wife had £l,000, and that she would lend it at 5 per cent. interest to the council. He had to resign in consequence, or otherwise he would have been brought before the Supreme Court.

Ought a member of Parliament from whom the Government buys a farm also to be brought before the court?

Of course, because inmost such cases the Government pays too much. I am sorry that the Minister of Railways and Harbours has been let down in so many ways this year. I heard the speeches about the engines, and I also heard what was said about the useless sleepers lying in hundreds and thousands at Salt River, and about which the Railway Administration was defrauded. We cannot blame the Minister for that, but we blame the agents who sent them. If it had been this side of the House that made the blunder, then big guns opposite would have been heard. To-day, however, they are silent as the grave. Only one Minister has taken part in this debate, and he only raised smoke screens about what the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) had said. He never touched upon the contract with the hon. member for Viededorp (Dr. Visser), and if he had talked for weeks he would never have come to the contract which an hon. member of the House entered into with his own Government.

The Minister did dealt with this subject.

The hon. member was hit very hard to-day, and has now probably gone to bed. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) asked if we were in favour of civilized labour. We are in favour, but we are opposed to the way things are going in some places, viz., that the civilized labourers are placed for a time in certain districts, and have to occupy tents. The natives do the picking of the gravel, and the civilized labourers have merely to raise up the sand along the line. I should much like to know who is responsible for that.