intimated to the House the receipt of a letter from Mrs. Brand Wessels acknowledging the resolution adopted by the House on the 28th January, and conveying her deep appreciation to the members of the House for their sympathy with her and her family on the death of her husband.

If it is not too late, Mr. Speaker, I have a report that I would like to present. I rose just now for the purpose of doing so but apparently you did not see me.

I am afraid it is now too late, as the first Order has been read. I called for reports in the usual way, and I did not see any hon. member rise. The hon. member can bring up the report to-morrow. I wish to point out that I generally ask for reports and by that are meant reports that come from select committees. Afterwards I call for papers.

[Debate, adjourned yesterday, resumed.]

Before the adjournment last night I was talking about civilized labour, and in this connection I want to ask the Minister—although I am certain that he is not responsible for it—whether it is true that workers were sent to certain districts where the S.A.P. hold a seat with a small majority so that they could be registered there and in that way win that seat. I refer to people from other districts. If it is true it is deplorable. We know the great scandal that took place in the old days in Bechuanaland. Do we want repetition of that? I disapprove of such conduct in any Government. Then it has been brought to my notice that the discipline of the railway workers is much weaker than formerly. I have heard that in some cases when foremen point out to workmen that they are not doing their duty they received the answer from the workers that they will write to Charlie. I don’t know who “Charlie” is, but it is surely contrary to all discipline.

The people at least now have a place where they can complain. They did not have it in the past.

The number of railway accidents was very large Last year there were 18 collisions and 79 derailments. The Minister cannot, of course, inspect the railways, but that indicates laxity somewhere or other. The railway material is not good or the supervision is faulty, otherwise the number of accidents could not have been much larger than other years In the districts of Paarl, Stellenbosch and that neighbourhood, hardly any wine is sent by rail now. All the people send their wine to Cape Town and elsewhere by motor lorries. They prefer that because the trains handle their goods roughly. The train service is still the same as before Promises were made of a train which would enable children, clerks, professors, etc., to arrive at their work in time, but such a train has not yet been granted. Professors have often to give lectures in Cape Town. The professors exchange in this manner, but they often have to return to Stellenbosch by motor otherwise they cannot arrive in Stellenbosch before. Promises were made of a train which I hope the Minister will deny it. I have been told that during the recent Provincial Council elections the Minister of Railways and Harbours made a speech at De Aar on the eve of the poll and when he was asked about the railway rates the chairman—so I was told—said they must wait until the following day, that the Minister would then still be at De Aar and would hear their grievances. If I am wrong and the Minister denies it, I will apologise, but according to my information the people with grievances had an interview with the Minister on election day and then they went to vote.

You do not believe it yourself.

That is what I was told. As regards the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), I was much disappointed. The hon. member is possibly better informed on theology than on engines. I have experience of English and American engines. I have two English engines, one of them has been running for ten years without having anything done to it.

Perpetual motion.

The other has been running for seven years. My neighbours have American and Canadian engines which give them much trouble. I have already used up seven American motor cars during the time which the engines have run satisfactorily. I am astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Winburg. Hon. members cannot now get away from it and all they can do is to interrupt me.

South Africa is a country of long distances and lacking in many of the natural transport facilities which other countries enjoy and which devote so much toward the prosperity and commerce of a country. Here we have to look to our railways to meet that want, and nature has placed within our reach the means of making our railways serve our purpose—I am referring to cheap native labour, which has been responsible for the building of the lines we already possess. Instead of availing ourselves of this we find the Minister employing the most expensive form of manual labour. The hon. member for Brakpan. (Mr. Waterston) yesterday tried to point out that many of the Europeans for whom we are trying to find work as manual laboureres are unfit for that work, and I agree with him. Why does the Minister not endeavour to provide some more suitable employment for men of this type and employ those who are suited for manual labour and for nothing else in their natural sphere It was said with regard to the steel industry that if it was established it would lead to subsidiary industries. How are these going to find a market if, in addition to the high cost of labour we are going to still increase the rates of transport? The only practical way to establish industries in the interior is to give them the cheapest possible transport facilities, if they have to compete in the world’s markets, which they will be expected to do. The Government’s avowed policy is to find work for the poor whites, and in order to do that they are taking as many as they possibly can on the railways. Who has to bear the burden of that? The inland population. I say it is grossly unfair to saddle a certain section of your community with that burden because they happen to be the users of the railway, in order to provide work for the unemployed. Take the case of the mealie grower or the wool grower. The rates are double what they were some years ago with regard to our wool, and the up-country man in order that employment may be found for this class of expensive labour, has to pay additional transport charges, the cost of which naturally has to be deducted from the price of his wool, while anything that goes from the coast to the interior has to be paid on by him as a consumer. Thus he has to pay both ways. It was pointed out from those (Labour) benches that whereas we have employed 13,000 or 14,000 more people on the railways we have reduced the numbers of relief workers. In the one case the whole nation or State pays but in the other we are imposing the burden on a certain section only. The rates have been put up owing to the enhanced cost of working.

Since when?

It is obvious that if more must be paid out in running expenses that to balance that additional tariffs will have to be imposed. Commonsense tells us that if your expenses increase you must have the rates to cope with that. To deny or dispute that is just a quibble which must be obvious to any man of commonsense. It is the people of the interior who have to pay the piper. Before sitting down I would like to refer to the unfortunate speech made by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). I have seldom, if ever, listened to a more unfortunate and reprehensible utterance than the defence put up in support of that speech by the Minister of Defence. In identifying himself with the spirit of that speech the Minister was betraying the ideals which it should have been his duty to have defended. He professes to speak on behalf of the English-speaking people of this country, that it is not so the Provincial Council elections have proved that he is not speaking for a large section of the people of this country. Every true son of South Africa knows or should know that the greatest benefit that can come upon this country is to have a united people. That sentiment was given utterance to by the Prime Minister when he got back from Europe, and just as it is the greatest good to bring the races together in South Africa, so is it the greatest evil and disservice to do anything to separate them. Anything done by any person to create racialism (race hatred) is an act of treachery and of enmity.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has a grievance against his own party, but he is expressing it now against the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). After his speech he will have nothing left to say when the Flag Bill comes on. During the past year the hon. members have been doing nothing but stirring up race hatred. Unfortunately the hon. member has now made a speech which he intended to make on the Flag Bill. I assure him that he has my sympathy. During the past ten, twenty or thirty years, his party has always been preaching race hatred. I want the hon. member to listen, because I want to give him good advice. If he will turn up the speeches of his party he will always find sufficient material when the Flag Bill comes up for discussion. If there is one Minister who can be satisfied with his department, then it is the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The Opposition have been busy the last two days discussing the administration of that department, but they have not found the slightest mistake. I have heard nothing except about a few locomotives, and the firm who supplied them will attend to the repairs. It will not cost more than £100 an engine, and the State will not have any expenditure in reinstating them. This must be a bitter disappointment to the Opposition. The question of sleepers has also been dealt with by the Opposition, but after the speech of the Minister there is not much in that. No attack on the Minister and his department could be made, and the Opposition therefore attacked my hon. friend, the member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). Hon. members opposite know him just as well as I do. If there is one man who from his childhood has shown that he has the interests and prosperity of his country at heart, then it is the hon. member for Vrededorp, and I challenge any hon. member opposite to prove that he or the whole lot of them together was willing to make greater sacrifices for his country.

Is that the reason why he got the contract?

The reason was not that he wanted to benefit himself, but that he wanted to benefit South Africa. The proof is that the contract was not carried out. Suppose that the hon. member for Vrededorp had delivered the sleepers at the price mentioned in the contract, then there would have been no agitation, and hon. members opposite would have remained quite quiet. The question of the legal luminary of Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to the Minister was whether the hon. member for Vrededorp possessed the sleepers when the contract was entered into. What has that to do with the matter? The Railway Administration was properly protected in the contract. I do not know whether it is the custom in the court to bluff the judge and the witnesses, but I can tell the hon. member that in this House it is not so easy a matter. If the hon. member did not possess the sleepers then he could not have delivered them, and if he did not deliver them he would have received no payment, and then the country and the Administration would not have suffered a far-thing’s damages. My hon. friend, the leader or sub-leader or general manager of the South African party (Sir Thomas Smartt) looked rather pleased when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was leading the great fight. The latter once said in the House—

but the soldier politician of the Opposition said about this contract—

The man who has stood all the thunder of the guns and did not get shell shock but now gets so nervy, but what is his attitude about the occurrence in 1914 or 1915 when the Government hired lucerne land from the Smartt Syndicate at 9s. per day per horse.

What is your allegation?

The hon. member only hears when it suits him, otherwise he is deaf. My statement is that the sub-leader or assistant-general of the Opposition—

Give him a few more titles.

Fortunately we have abolished titles, otherwise he would have had a few more. The Smartt Syndicate at that time leased lucerne lands at 9s. per day per horse, but now he also is “filled with horror.”

9s. a day?

One would think it was for 6 months, but it was for a day. Moreover no contract was made and it was not stated whether the lands had to remain 6 or 3 months, or a day before the horses would be put on them. Any horse which the Government brought there was accepted.

Is that the only defence you have?

It is certainly a good defence. In any case I would have done it because I see not the least danger in it. If I, as a farmer, can sell anything to the Government, then I see no difference between my transaction and that of the hon. member for Vrededorp. What is the position if the police or a railway official comes round, and I as a farmer may not in future sell any good horses I breed, or produce that I grow? Hon. members opposite seem to make no objections to an advocate or an attorney appearing for the Government in court. What is actually the difference if one of the shining lights of the legal profession appears for the Government? The position then is surely no different. Now I should like one of the hon. members opposite to explain to me why the hon. member for Vrededorp may not sell sleepers to the Railway Administration, while I, as a farmer, may sell horses and other produce to it. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) laughs, but if he can get a good price for his wine from the Railway Catering department, then he will not delay for a minute to sell it to the department. I take it that he makes good wine, and he of course has good taste. What right has he then to so when he made it clear yesterday how illegal the contract with the hon. member for Vrededorp was?

I am not chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

It makes no difference whether you are chairman of the Select Committee or an ordinary member of the House.

I am not chairman of the Catering Department.

There is not the least difference in the position which the hon. member now occupies. He is a member of the House of Assembly, but there is no reason why he cannot be made a chairman.

A back to the front.

Then he will immediately change his principles. If it suits them to-day they will regard the principle as holy, but tomorrow, when it no longer suits them, it will no longer be so. Now I should be glad if another shining light of the legal profession, e.g., the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) will explain to us why I, as a farmer, may sell produce to the Government, while other hon. members opposite disapprove of the act of the hon. member for Vrededorp. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the firm or firms of such a good and honest member as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) have at one time or another sold many articles to the Government, and also to the Railway Department.

During the time when he was Minister of Railways and Harbours?

Yes, possibly then also.

No, not while I was Minister.

I accept that, but the hon. member is one of the chief and most honest hon. members of the House, and I should like to ask if there is any reason why he should not enter into a contract with the Government. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) may sell to any Government department, why not may any other hon. member? I can well believe that, if the Opposition gets into power again—not that I think that will ever happen —the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will not refuse to sell goods to the State. Will the hon. member say that the Government belongs to his own party and he therefore cannot contract with them? He will not say so, and the Government will enter into a contract with him, because good and honest dealing can be expected from him. This is not a matter of principle, and every case must be regarded on its merits. If I were a Minister I would enter into a contract with some hon. members opposite, e.g., with the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) if I required donkeys or steam ploughs; also with hon. members on this side of the House, although probably with some I should have to deal carefully. I would not make an agreement with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to defend all my cases, because then I should not know what he was being paid for. It is not that I think such a contract is against my principles, but the only reason is that I have not sufficient confidence in his ability and that I think the money will have been wasted. If I were in the position of a Minister, and I hope this is the attitude which the Minister will adopt, then I would enter into a contract with an upright and honest man from whom I might expect honest and fair dealing. A tremendous noise has been made here to create the impression with the public that underhand things are happening here, and that a contract is being carried out about which no one knows anything. Apparently terrible discoveries have been made, and all the facts are not yet known. It is supposed that when everything is made public, it will be a terrible thing that is going on, and it is represented as if the Minister of Railways and Harbours is not able to publish documents which he has in his possession. I ask the Minister if there is a single word which he has not yet published, to do so, so that the public may know where it stands and what terrible complications have taken place. Hon. members opposite are sitting very quiet, but I want again to ask the question whether I, as a farmer, may sell a horse to the Government.

Yes.

Why, then, cannot the hon. member for Vrededorp sell sleepers to the Railway Administration?

You breed the horses yourself.

What guarantee is there that the horses are bred by the man who sells them? It is one of my grievances against the former Government that it never bought from the farmers, but always from the speculators. Was it asked when the contract with the speculator was entered into whether he possessed the horses? No, what did that matter? I admit that the hon. member for Vrededorp does not make or grow sleepers, but if he did not have the sleepers and could not deliver them, he would have received no payment. If he did not have the sleepers, he could buy them somewhere else, just like the caterers of the former Government, after the conclusion of the contract, also bought at other places. Everybody admits, even hon. members opposite, that there is no fault to find with the price fixed for sleepers in the contract. The only objection made is that he is a member of this House. How many members opposite have not yet sold things to the Government? Contracts ought only to be given out on the merits, and for no other reason. Why may members of the legal profession act as attorneys or advocates for the Government, irrespective of whether the Government gets good or bad value for its money? In this case even the railway experts are satisfied that if the sleepers can be got at a price mentioned in the contract, then sleepers to the value of £1,000,000 could be bought over three years. The hon. member for Vrededorp did not deliver the sleepers at that price, but this shows that the Railway Administration did its duty, and watched the interests of the country. Another grievance probably is that the hon. member for Vrededorp entered into the contract. But if it had been a Fischer or Blackwell, it would not have mattered.

That is a ridiculous statement.

It possibly, looks ridiculous, I grant that to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), but it is really a ridiculous and petty attitude that some hon. members opposite are taking up. The attack makes it inconvenient for us because we are not able to resort to such petty steps as hon. members opposite. They have also made a terrible fuss about the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), but the greatest part of his speech was made up of quotations from English writers. Hon. members opposite could repeat the statements in the same circumstances, and then it would be nothing, but it is wrong for the hon. member for Winburg to do so because he is Dutch-speaking.

What about his statement that Natal is a coolie and native reserve?

If he said that the whole of Natal was a coolie and native reserve—

The hon. member must not wander too far from the subject of the debate.

I will try to keep as close to it as possible. If the hon. member said that the whole of Natal was a coolie and native reserve, I would not agree with him, but if it is said that Natal has nearly become so, then I fully agree. If it had not been for Union, then that would have happened. And while the former Government was in office for 14 years, it nearly became so. Natal should be thankful towards the present Government for being pulled out of the mud it was in.

What has the Government done?

Not altogether, but one at a time. Hon. members opposite are just like a lot of moths, when they see the light they all come around. Natal ought to be grateful, because the Government has saved it from its parlous position. I shall say nothing further—

You have not said anything yet.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), probably after consulting the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider), made a reference to anything good coming out of Nazareth, and he gave the answer—I do not know whether he found it in the Bible—

I want, however, to tell him that it is very dangerous for him to say that as he comes from Australia, because the good Englishmen also knew it and sent them to Australia.

The hon. member must confine himself to the debate.

In conclusion, I want to say that hon. members opposite were pleased when I said that I would say nothing further, but if I could refer the hon. member to a verse in the Psalms, it would be—

I am sorry that the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) has gone to such lengths. He has thrown mud at the whole of the South African population. We like the hon. member, but with his accusations and insinuations he has done nothing but throw mud. Hon. members opposite now want to say that we are the cause of all the race hatred there is in the country, and which has been seen in this House again to-day. Does the hon. member maintain that we are the sole cause thereof? Does not exactly the same thing apply to actions and conduct on the countryside? Has he not caused much race hatred there, and also again in the House this afternoon? He even tried to drag in the Australian population into our racial troubles. It is contemptible and deplorable. With reference to the Argentine contract for sleepers, the hon. member said that the hon. member for Vrededorp had done the most for the Afrikander people in the second war of independence.

I did not say that. I did not say that he had done most. Is not the hon. member of opinion that other hon. members, and possibly he himself, did more than the hon. member for Vrededorp? I do not know whether he fought. Perhaps he did his duty as a doctor, but as far as I know he was in Johannesburg in those days.

Hon. members are too much inclined to discuss things which have nothing to do with the debate.

I submit to your ruling. It is a pity that the hon. member represented the whole South African population in such a light. I am surprised at the view of the hon. member for Frankfort of the contract with the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). Does he now wish to state that if a farmer sells his own horse to the Government, it is the same as entering into a contract for £1,000,000 for sleepers? It is apparently a very good thing that the contract did not go through, otherwise the complications would have been much greater. What would the position not have been if the hon. member for Vrededorp, as a result of the contract, had made £50,000? We expect more information and ask for more papers. The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) is astonished at this, but we want to know how the matter started. We now have to make assumptions, and think that the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) had a conversation with the Minister, and that all possible benefits were promised him if the matter could be put through. We now want to know how he got into touch with the Minister. The population will presumably quite know how to take the matter up. I only regret that the Minister of Railways and Harbours entered into such a contract with a member of this House. I now want to come to a few speeches which have been made here, and especially one by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst). I do not like repeating the statements of the hon. member, but his speech was so bombastic that I am obliged to discuss what he said, because the Riversdale people may possibly think that his speech was correct. The hon. member gave various figures with regard to the debts this Government took over from its predecessor. That is surely an old custom for an incoming Government to take over the liability of the outgoing. If the hon. member means—as one must take it from his speech—that that is not so, it is time that he should warn his Government to make a start in paying off the debts it has made, because the new Government which will certainly come in two years’ time will not pay the debts.

They have not made any bad debts.

The hon. member for Riversdale is always talking of debts which were taken over, never of the assets which were taken over by the new Government. The incoming Government found a surplus of 3¾ of a million, and the items to which the hon. member has referred did not amount to more than £100,000. The amount could therefore easily be paid off. The figures of the hon. member were not correct. I just want to advise him to think a little bit more before he quotes figures again. I wonder what the hon. members on the cross benches think of the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) accused the last Government of doing nothing to give the boys working in the various institutions of the Government and elsewhere a chance to become skilled artizans, and he said that the last Government never took steps to provide institutions for the training of our boys. I just want to point out that some years ago there was a question of giving our boys, from 18 to 20 years, an opportunity in the workshops at Pretoria, and the Government decided upon placing the young people there. Only eight days later the boys had to be taken away again because the trade unions had protested. Quite a number of the boys who had been indentured had to be discharged. It is one of the principles of the Labour party that work should be reserved for a certain circle of skilled workmen, and they do not any longer assist in the training of the boys. The same thing subsequently occurred with reference to the engineering shops at Johannesburg. It was decided to put as many boys as possible into the workshops. The Labour unions protested, and said that if the number of boys was not reduced to a certain figure, the whole staff would strike. To-day the former Government is accused of never doing anything for the training of skilled workmen. What is the position to-day? If the Minister of Railways and Harbours takes young boys into the workshops at Pretoria, the Labour unions will immediately take steps to prevent the number exceeding a certain figure.

What have I to do with that political party?

The Minister is not permitted to take more than a certain number into the railway workshops to train as qualified artizans. I am very sorry about what the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has said, and I did not expect it of him. I think he openly expressed his private opinion, and also certain wishes that we ought to be totally independent of England.

Where and when did the hon. member say that?

He said— England is going to the dogs.

Nonsense.

I have not got up to champion England, but I stand here as a farmer for the interests of South Africa. If I, as a farmer, had produce to sell overseas, then there is only one market, and that is in England. Sixty-five per cent. of agricultural produce is sold in England. Are we now wilfully to insult the people who have the market in their hands, and say the country is going to the dogs? I say that we as a farming population will do nothing to break the friendship that to-day exists between the two countries. We know if we do that, England will say—

Then we shall go to the dogs much quicker than England. We know that England is a great country, and can stand much better on its own feet than we can. I think the hon. member who made the accusation did not think of that. I do not know whether he has anything to sell. I do not know whether he is a farmer, but I deplore his speech. If he considers carefully, he will see that by what he said he could only damage the farming population of South Africa.

The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) seems to have put up a kind of smoke screen on this question of the sleeper contract. His argument, so far as I could understand it, was roughly that there was no difference whatever between a barrister receiving fees in his professional capacity for taking up a case for the Government, or a manufacturer of boots supplying boots to the Government, no difference between that and the Chairman of the Railway Committee of this House, a medical practitioner, taking a contract for the supply of sleepers to the value of £330,000 a year for three years from the Government, when we know quite well that the Railway Committee in this House are practically the guardians of the country’s interests in all railway matters. I say this, that if the hon. members opposite cannot see the difference between these two cases that I quote, if their intelligence is not sufficiently clear to understand the difference between these two cases, I am perfectly certain that the people outside in the country will have different ideas of the two transactions, and the people in the country will know what to call the sleeper contract. There is no doubt in my mind as to what the feeling outside will be when a medical practitioner who is also chairman of the Railways and Harbours Committee contracts for £330,000 per year for three years without the Government putting that matter up to tender. As a matter of fact, there were two ways of dealing with this matter, and I am very sorry the Minister has not dealt with it in the most satisfactory way—coming to the House and saying—

When you have done something wrong it is better to say so than put up feeble excuses.

Why don’t you put a motion?

I understand the Minister saw the law advisers of the Crown to see if there were any reasons why he should not enter into this contract, and they advised him that there was no reason why he should not do so. But I ask that unless there was some misgiving in the Minister’s mind on the matter, why should he go to the law advisers at all? You do not go to your law adviser every five minutes when you think you are doing something which is quite right. I did not, however, get up to discuss that matter, because it has been put very clearly, and the House and the country can judge, as they have the facts. What I wanted to speak about was to support the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) on his criticism of the railways’ handling of export fruit. The farmer is told to be particularly careful as to the way fruit is packed, the grading of it and so forth, and when it comes to the docks it is handled at what is supposed to be the best cold storage system in the world; but the weak link is between leaving the farmer’s packhouse and arriving at the cold storage at the docks. I have also heard that in packing fruit into the trucks porters tread on the trays, and therefore damage the fruit.

When and where did this happen?

I will give the Minister all the information I have.

Please give it, because it is a serious allegation you are making.

It was reported to me that there was treading on the cases at Stellenbosch.

On what date?

I have not got it with me.

I want the facts.

I do not go about carrying a pocket-book with me—

Surely it is a serious thing, and you should report it at once.

If I reported everything I saw wrong to the Minister, he would have to keep a clerk for the purpose.

I do keep a clerk for the purpose.

I will give you the particulars. I would now like to deal with the question of the Fruit Control Board, which seems to me to be trying to bring this question to an exact science, and their theory is that on a given date they ought to get full details of farmers’ exports for January, February and March, and when they come to January, February and March they send out further forms on which the farmers are supposed to state the exact shipments for each week in the month. I have a great deal of sympathy with the board, but they are trying to do something which is impossible. To ask a man in November what he is likely to ship the following February is an impossibility. Within twenty-four hours of the statement going in there may be a heavy south-easter, and half his crop may be blown off. They want to know how much he is going to send by the mail of the 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th. If we were dealing with boots or a commodity of that nature, it is possible, but you are dealing with a product and you do not know when it is ripe, and what the conditions are which come in between the time the estimate is sent in and the time you deliver the goods. The result naturally was that the Fruit Control Board were entirely misled by the reports from the various farmers, and they, in fact, say so in their reply to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). They say that the hon. member’s information is very ill-informed. I think that anybody having heard the hon. member’s speech will agree that the statement he made is substantially supported by the letter they have written, and in that statement there are also very important discrepancies; for instance, if the Minister will refer to it, he will find that they called a meeting with certain other gentlemen on the 2nd of February and there discussed with them as to whether they should give up space on the Bendigo or space on the Llandaff. Later on in their statement they inform us they gave up space on the Llandaff on the 24th of January, or more than a week before they were solemnly sitting down and discussing which ship they were going to give up. I do suggest that any board that sits down solemnly, calls for expert advice and discusses a point like this knowing already that the case has already been disposed of, is one of the most extraordinary statements a body of reasonable men could make; and therefore the statement of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that it was a very lucky thing for them that they were not able to give up the space on the Bendigo is correct, and their statement, on their own showing, is absolutely wrong. They point out that they are going to charge 90s. a ton for soft fruit and are going to hold up the whole of the pears during March, but the individual who has any pears which are still not rotten will have the right of shipping these at a lower freight in April. Farmers have to take the chance that the fruit will not be rotten when it arrives on the other side. I do suggest that that is no compensation to the man who has the whole of his pear crop held up for a month. The position to-day is exactly what we prophesied twelve months ago. Is it not time that the Minister of Railways and Harbours considered whether it would be advisable to repeal the Act he passed last year, and let the people who understand the business tackle the business? If they make mistakes they have only themselves to blame. These gentlemen of the board are doing their best, but are trying to do the impossible, and getting into trouble with fruit farmers all round. Give the fruit industry its freedom once more. I am perfectly certain, however willing the board is to try to do their job, and I agree they are trying to do it well, they have difficulties with the farmers. You cannot get information from farmers like you can from other people, and farmers do not have an office and a staff of typists to furnish statistics. The farmer is afraid to give the full amount he expects to export because if he does not export the whole lot he is afraid of being made to pay for the freight which he does not take up. If he gives a low estimate he is afraid that all his stuff will not be shipped. He is between Scylla and Charybdis, he feels he is had either way. The poor fruit board is trying to solve an insoluble problem.

I wish to make a few remarks to endorse what the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) said as to the civilized labour policy as it affects the farmers. We hear a great deal in the House of the demand for the reduction of railway rates. Is there any justification for that? The rates on certain articles in which farmers and others are interested have gone up; take wool, for instance, which of course is an important production of the Orange Free State and in which many hon. members are interested; since 1914 the increase in the rate has been 84 per cent. The rate on eggs was increased by 20 per cent., on agricultural machinery by 65 per cent., on imported boots and shoes 81 per cent., and sugar 54 per cent. So on, all through the list we see a tremendous increase compared with 1914, and we are justified in demanding a reduction. Even the rate on livestock is 15 per cent, higher than it was in 1914. What is the reason a reduction in rates is not granted? Is it not generally due to the fact that we have a civilized labour policy, with which I have a certain amount of sympathy, but there is a danger in extending that policy to such a degree that it will be a matter of very serious moment to the general pastoral and industrial interests of the country. For the financial year 1924-’25 7,484 European labourers were employed on the railways, their wages being £533,000. In the following year the number had increased to over 10,000 and the wages to £905,000. This should receive the very careful consideration of the Government, as this increased cost will hamper the Minister in attempting to give reduced rates to up-country people. The cost per head of European labourers on the railways for the financial year 1924-’25 was about £71 per annum. In the following year the cost was £90, so we see not only an increase in the number of European employees, but an increase in the cost per head. This increase means that we are having a steady drift of Europeans from our country districts to the railways. I quite agree that a certain number of that class of men should be employed on the railway, for many of them make good and reach a fairly high position in the railway service. The average man of that class, however, remains a labourer. Is that what we want—do we want to see a European remain a labourer all his life? I would rather see them employed on the land—that is where they come from and where they ought to be. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) stated the other day that the average return per head of our farmers was only £100 a year. That seems a very small wage, but is it not due to the fact that a very large number of that class of men who work as a master should have been servants and are not doing justice either to themselves or to their land? These men have not been trained as servants, and, therefore, are not fit to be masters even of themselves. I will not go into the civilized labour policy, but we ought to be very careful not to extend that policy to a dangerous degree. We have over 10,000 miles of railways built, to a large extent, by native labour, and we have to recognize that if our railways are to be built on an economic basis, they must be constructed by natives. There is an insistent cry for more railways, but how is it possible to extend the system if we do not employ natives in the construction of new lines? It would be madness to think that we shall be able to carry on our railway system by increasing the employment of civilized labour. I wish to refer to the question of the purchase of locomotives from America. I certainly do think that there was an absolute lack of reciprocity in the purchase of those engines. It seems as if prejudice had dominated the deal; certainly business did not dominate the deal, not only from the point of true business economy, but also when we see the way the purchase was made. After an order for certain locomotives had been filled, the company was asked to supply catalogues and drawings, but this the local representatives were not prepared to do, except at a cost of £1,790, stating that catalogues and drawings were not included in the price quoted for the four locomotives. After that, one would have thought that the department would have been very careful, but a further order was placed with the company—the Baldwin Locomotive Works of Philadelphia, U.S.A.—for 15 more locomotives. Notwithstanding the fact that the Administration failed to make provision for the supply of catalogues and tracings when obtaining quotations for the first four locomotives, it was again overlooked to provide for the supply of these catalogues and tracings when calling for quotations for the 15 further locomotives, and the local representatives would only supply the required catalogues and tracings at a cost of £1,650. Here we have a failure to look at matters from a business point of view. I think this shows that the department is lacking in business capacity when it overlooks these small details.

I am sure the Minister will be grateful to me for giving him an opportunity of making a statement on the proposed improvements to Buffalo Harbour, where a turning basin and a new bridge are very urgently required. He must look forward to the time when East London will become an even more important shipping centre than it is at present. Already it is the premier port for the export of wool, and when the supplies of citrus come forward, the resources of that port will be taxed very severely. I hope the Minister will be able to give some assurance that these matters will receive sympathetic attention. I would like to say a word on the supplies of railway material, and where they come from. Surely this debate will have brought home to the Minister that he is making a great mistake in considering cheapness as the dominant factor. A few years ago I was travelling from London to Holyhead. We changed engines at Crewe, and I noticed that the fresh engine was built as far back as 1862. It was still capable, however, of drawing an express train. It was made in England, of course.

Why “of course”?

Because at that time practically no engines were made outside England. A recent report shows that British rails had been in use in Japan for 40 years, and are still as good as when they were new. Japan had no particular reason to purchase these rails from England, except that Japan knew that it would get better value for its money from England than from elsewhere. I have heard no complaints of split rails or cracked engines which have been secured from England. With regard to the Visser contract, I am the last to add to the poignancy of the Minister’s position, but I hope he will take the advice of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and admit frankly that he has made a mistake, and that it will not occur again. I find that the Auditor-General reported a loss of 4,000 to 5,000 sleepers at Knysna. They got mislaid, at any rate they were never accounted for, and were a dead loss. There seems to be a great carelessness with regard to sleepers in this country. I hope the Minister, for the sake of restoring the confidence of the country, will put himself “on side,” by saying there is no intention to continue this policy which has been discussed at such length. It is surprising that members in the position of the Minister, and the chairman of important committees, should not have reflected what their conduct and mentality would be on the service. While they are acting as heads of a big department their actions are watched by the staff, and any deviation into impropriety may be reflected in their subordinates. The heads of the Administration are the tokens of value before the numerals which indicate the denomination of the currency, and whether we are dealing in pounds, dollars or pence, or worthless marks. I note there has been a considerable increase in defalcations, and consequently in the number of thefts and prosecutions on the railway. The railway officials are the trusted servants of the public, and it must necessarily follow, if those who ought to set a high example fail, there will be a considerable deterioration of care, thought and action in dealing with matters under their charge. It is a very important matter, and I hope the lesson of this debate will not be lost on the Minister and the Administration. It is no excuse whatever that no specific penalty is prescribed for such a contract—the breach of trust disclosed in this sleeper contract. It was no excuse that it was not specifically forbidden. In the old Roman days there were no penalties prescribed for parricide, because it was thought that no person could be guilty of the murder of a father. There was no penalty prescribed for this sort of Visser contract, because it was beyond imagination that the Minister could give such a contract to his chief critic, who happened to be chairman of the Railways Committee. The attempts made to gloss over this matter have not been creditable to the hon. members of the House who made them. Few more regrettable speeches have been made than that by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). He has disclosed that he may love his country, but he hates some of his South African fellow-citizens more than he loves. That is a very bad state of mentality to be in, to hate your fellow-countrymen more than you love your country, and one regrets to think that such utterances could have been made in this House. What has he done in the pulpit? Have the young members of his congregation been trained on these lines, and if so, is that a hopeful sign for the coming race of the country? Everyone knows we have enough difficulties of our own, without this cause of unnecessary friction, and I think his action and sentiment are to be deprecated. His animosity not only goes towards England, but it is directed to that part of our own South Africa which happens to be occupied largely by English-speaking people. His language towards Natal is unworthy of any member of this House, and is calculated to increase the divisions which we have been carefully trying to bridge since Union. If anything could be worse than the speech of the hon. member, it was the speeches delivered by way of apology for it. I found one or two comforting facts, and derived some satisfaction by observing the appearance of disgust among hon. members over there who have more respect for the decencies of parliamentary life than the hon. member for Winburg. I believe the hon. member for Winburg is an isolated ease, and the fact that we see a disease amongst us is a good reason to check it so that it will not pursue its course. It was a regrettable speech, but I can only hope good will come from it. When the Minister of Defence adopted his one and only reply, “the wicked press,” he must have had a poor opinion of the intellects of those he is attacking. His efforts were directed to blaming those who exposed, the offence rather than those who committed it. The press would not be doing its duty if it did not expose these matters and drew attention to the unworthy nature of the reply. I hope we have heard the last of such speeches as that of the hon. member for Winburg.

I think hon. members will agree that the debate has covered a wide range, and I should like to try to, as shortly as possible, deal with the various points brought to my notice. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has mentioned the rates in drought-stricken districts. I will only say that if on the recommendation of the Agricultural Department a district is proclaimed drought-stricken, we only charge half the ordinary rate in that district. He has also, as before, asked for lower rates for coal for agricultural purposes. It is impossible. As I said before, no distinction can be made between the rates for coal to various consumers. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) complained about the type of truck supplied for the lucerne traffic. I admit that the type is not always as satisfactory as we should like, but hon. members must not forget that we must use our stock of trucks in the best manner possible. We are not able to discard a particular kind of truck, but in the case of produce of a peculiar nature like lucerne, we are obliged to use such types as we have available, even if we should prefer to use another kind. In time, and in proportion to the disappearance of the old types, new types will be supplied. Then the hon. member, and also other hon. members, ask for information about the recruiting of workmen for the railway. It was quite rightly pointed out that it would be dangerous if the Railway Department had people in its service without keeping proper account of the requirements of farming and other industries. I grant that we must act carefully in this connection, but I want to tell hon. members that the point was appreciated a year ago, and that from that time the Department of Labour, and not the Railway Department, has been in charge of it; in other words, the Department of Labour is to-day responsible for the recruiting of workmen, and I can assure hon. members that the work is done very carefully.

That is not so.

If the hon. member will bring concrete instances to my notice where that is not done, I will go into it. It is obvious why it is done. The Labour Department has machinery which the Railway Department does not have, to inquire whether an applicant is actually needy, so that, e.g., bywoners on the farm or their sons who must help on the farm are not employed. The Labour Department goes carefully into this, and persons are not employed until they are registered by the Labour Department. When cases are brought to hon. members’ notice that this is not done, and it is thought that persons ought not to have been employed in the railway service, then they must bring it to the notice of the Labour Department, so that the necessary inquiry can be made to obviate the repetition thereof. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M van Zyl) has mentioned certain local matters about the Touws River-Ladismith line, and asked for certain improvements. I want to tell him, and all hon. members who have brought local matters to my notice, that they must understand that the Railway Administration cannot possibly keep pace with all the requests which come in from all parts of the country for more facilities. It is quite impossible to comply with all the requests, unless Parliament is willing to vote a very much larger sum for capital expenditure. Take, e.g., the request of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). He is quite dissatisfied because I said it was impossible to erect platforms at all the halts and country stations, I want to repeat again that it is stated that in the United States of America there are only high platforms at the larger stations, and that all the halts and country stations have no platforms. How can, on our 12,000 miles of railway, all these facilities be given which are constantly being demanded? It cannot be done unless the House is willing to vote a much larger sum for capital expenditure. I want to tell the House that it is the policy of the Railway Administration to-day not to increase unnecessary facilities of that kind. They all involve capital expenditure, and that results in an increased burden of interest which has to be found by the users of the railway. Hon. members will see from the Railway Estimates that we have already an amount of nearly £5,000,000 annually to pay for interest, and that is a necessary expenditure which has to be found by the users of the railway before any lowering of rates can take place. Hon. members who insist on increased facilities are in many cases the very men who insist on the rates being lowered. Their requests are quite nice, but they cannot be given effect to if the railways are to be run on business principles. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) complains about the station buildings and other matters on the late New Cape Central Railway, and he talks of promises which were made. I certainly made no promise in this respect. No, when the line was taken over, I told the hon. member that the public ought to be thankful for its being taken over, and what is more, the public ought to be thankful that we are spending a large sum of money to put the line into proper order. I want to say that the policy is to put the line into proper order in respect of sleepers before other facilities are granted. I think the hon. member will agree with me that that is a proper policy, viz., to first put the permanent way in a proper condition. I admit that the stations and waiting rooms are not quite satisfactory, but at the same time the hon. member must realize that it is impossible at this stage to grant his request. The hon. member also spoke of main line rates, but inasmuch as the N.C.C.R. shows a great loss, I am not prepared in the present financial state of the railways to declare that line a main line. The hon. member can, however, explain to the farmers that when their produce is classified for tariff purposes lower than tariff 7, they will be treated as if the goods were being carried over a main line. The reduction which takes place in connection with the branch lines does not take place in the case of quite a large number of agricultural products, and a large number of other things, in that respect it makes no difference whether a line is a main line or a branch line. A large number of products, especially farming produce, since the taking over of that line, are carried at very much lower rates, and therefore it makes no difference in the case of those products, whether the line is a main line or not. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) will, I hope, be satisfied with the general answer I have already given in connection with waiting rooms and the housing of railwayman. And let me ask hon. members, in connection with the latter question, whether they have considered how many millions and additional millions it will cost if we were to make proper provision for the housing of the 55,000 European railwaymen, not to speak of the coloured men and natives who work on the railways, and who in all number 95,000 persons? But, what of the municipality and town councils? It seems to me as if they do not appreciate their responsibility in this matter at all. They are all very greedy, and their requests are particularly strong to have railwaymen placed in their towns and villages, except Natal, of course, which in this respect gives preference to coolies instead of white men on the railways. I am speaking here especially of Durban. Durban is apparently quite opposed to the policy of appointing white men in the place of Indians who leave the service. The municipalities, as I have already said, are only too anxious to have railwaymen in their towns and villages, but clearly do not appreciate their responsibility with regard to housing. The State greatly assists the municipalities with loans for housing schemes, etc., but the municipal authorities in their turn must appreciate that they have a responsibility. Every railwayman and his family are an asset to a village. He has purchasing power, and is a great asset in every respect, but clearly the municipalities do not appreciate their responsibility to these people as regards housing. It is for the State to build, they say. That is impossible. The policy of the Administration is, in the first instance, to provide for the people who are on outside stations, where there are no local bodies to shoulder the responsibility. Only a limited amount can annually be found for that purpose, and it is impossible to do everything in one year. The hon. member also spoke of excursion tickets, and I should like to go into that point later. The hon. member for Lydenburg and many other members made remarks about the policy of civilized labour, but I do not wish to discuss the matter at this stage. I think that when the main estimates are under discussion, we shall be in a better position to consider the matter, and for the convenience of the House, and to save time, I think that I will not go into the matter at this stage. I hope to go into the matter fully on the main estimates as to the steps which have been taken to put the policy of civilized labour on a sound basis. As I said last year, the Government has understood that the policy of civilized labour must be carefully gone into, so that the necessary steps can be taken to put it on a proper footing. As a result of the inquiry by three senior officials and the discussion of it by the Conciliation Board, the policy has been put on a sound basis, and I feel that I am justified in saying that the policy of civilized labour is placed on an absolutely sound economic basis. Now I should like to say a few words about the great demand for reduced rates. Hon. members laid great stress on it, and I will admit that lower railway rates mean that agriculture and industry are being advanced. I gladly admit that, but I want hon. members to consider what is happening in other parts of the world.

I spoke of lower railway rates under extraordinary circumstances.

I dealt with it when the hon. member was not here, and I said that half the rate was rebated under extraordinary circumstances in the drought-stricken districts. As to rates, I think Great Britain is a good example to us.

The distances are shorter there.

The principle is the same. Let me first deal with the matter, and then the hon. member can make his observations about it. In the periodical “Modern Transport” of January, 1927, the matter is dealt with, and the writer says, inter alia—

The article goes on to say that the railway rates in Great Britain are 50 or 60 per cent. higher than before the war. Anyone who knows anything of railway finances will know that one can go too far in reducing rates. Let me again quote from the periodical—

Thus it is stated that if the railway rates are made too low, then the increase of freight is not so high that it necessarily means an increased revenue. As I said before, hon. members must understand that, notwithstanding that we are all agreed that the rates ought to be as low as possible, we must see to-day that as a result of the steps which have been taken to put the position of the Pension Fund and other matters in order, it is impossible to revert to the pre-war rates. To prove to hon. members how we have taken steps to reduce rates, I want to give a few instances. I think that konfyt and canned fruits, in comparison with pre-war rates, are carried at a lower rate for all distances. Crude oil which is used for machinery is carried at a lower rate than before the war, all over distances from 50 to 1,000 miles. As every hon. member knows who has to do with fruit farming, the rate for fresh fruit was reduced recently in respect of long distances, and the tariff on deciduous fruits was reduced to pre-war rates, and for distances from 300 to 400 miles the rates are even less than in 1913. Take also, e.g., kraal and stable manure, articles which are absolutely necessary for farming in South Africa At all distances, from 500 to 1,000 miles, there is considerable reduction to less than the pre-war rates The same applies to the mealie traffic for long distances. For 700 to 1,000 miles the rate is less than before the war. I did this to especially assist the Western Province farmers to buy mealies, and to give the Free State and Transvaal farmers a market for their maize. The rate on vegetables for distances from 50 to 1,000 miles is less than before the war. For grain, wheat and flour for long distances, a reduction of rates has been made in comparison with pre-war ones. For short distances there is still a slight increase. For meat, fresh, and frozen for export, the tariff is less than pre-war for all distances. It is, of course, true that in respect of a large number of things the rates are still considerably higher. Taking all in all, the rates are now about 30 per cent. higher than before the war, in some cases more, in some cases less.

But the Auditor-General’s Report says that the rate for mealies from Cape Town to Bloemfontein is still 50 per cent. higher than before the war.

It is now 240d. and has been reduced. The hon. member has the report of last year. If he will listen properly he will not waste the time of the House. I am talking about the present position, and the rate for maize is now less than before the war for long distances.

Why doesn’t the Auditor-General say so?

The report was prepared before the reduction was effected. What a ridiculous attitude the hon. member is adopting. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and others, have said that the rate for short distances should be reduced. That has just been reduced at the recent reduction of rates. The rates on the suburban line have been reduced and still more special tickets have been introduced for workmen who do not travel more than twice a day. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) spoke about the export of perishable produce. I want to go into that later. As for dirty trucks, I ask the hon. member to kindly bring it to the station-master’s notice when anything of that kind occurs. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) went further and said that at Stellenbosch railwaymen walked and trampled upon boxes of fruit. Why does not the hon. member bring it to the notice of the station-masters. What are they there for? Surely to take care of the public interests on behalf of the Railway Administration. Now the hon. member makes an arbitrary statement here and when I ask him to give the date he was not even able to do so. He then said that he could not note it in his pocket book. If the hon. member really has the interests of the fruit farmers at heart why does he not go to the stationmaster? Unsatisfactory cases occur periodically, but then it is surely the best thing to immediately notify the responsible persons that someone is neglecting his duty, or otherwise to mention it at once to the Minister, so that the matter can be gone into. I should like to say that it is not fair towards the railway staff to make a statement like that of the hon. member for Stellenbosch of this afternoon. He says the incident happened at Stellenbosch, and this means that the blame is thrown on to the whole staff. That is not fair. I think that when the hon. member makes a complaint that it is no more than right that he should give the required details to the House. The hon. member has also spoken about the train service to and from Stellenbosch, and of a promise I made to him. It may have been one of the railway officials, because I gave no promise. What I said was that representations should be made to the Administration and that the matter would then be gone into. Then the hon. member also asked whether I had a meeting at De Aar on the day of the Provincial Council election with the railway staff there who wanted to see me. The answer is, that I certainly saw them. Does the hon. member think that when I am at a spot I am not prepared to see the railway staff? Let me tell the hon. member under what conditions. If they come with personal complaints then I refer them to the regulations, that they must act according to the regulations and bring them to the notice of the Railway Board and the Minister, and not make personal complaints. I therefore put them right. Does the hon. member object to my doing so?

You must not do it on polling day.

Why not, I had to stop there half a day, and does the hon. member wish that I should shut myself in and not assist the people? I think he expects far too much.

You had no business to go there.

Then the hon. member’s party would probably have won the seat. I am a politician and I make no secret of it. Were hon. members opposite, when they were Ministers, not politicians as well?

†I want to deal with some other representations which have been made by hon. members on the cross benches. The hon. members for Salt River (Mr. Snow), for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), and for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) raised the question of the eight hours’ day, and asked me whether the Government is prepared to bring into operation the rest of the report dealing with the eight hours’ day. I want to say at once that careful consideration has been given to the matter, but that we find it impossible to bring the report into full operation in view of the financial position of the country with regard to the railway finances. They have pressed me with regard to the restoration of the old rates of pay, but I do not think any good purpose could be served by a discussion of this matter, for the decision of the Government is that we cannot accept the Graham scales, and so cannot return to the old rates of pay. Hon. members have also referred to the catering staff. I want to say at once that the conditions under which members of that staff work are certainly onerous The position was gone into by the Hours of Duty Committee, which made certain recommendations. We could not carry out all, but we did certainly relieve the position.

What about their pay?

I am afraid their rates of pay have been laid down, and I cannot increase them I hope the hon. member for Umbilo will follow me when I deal with the question of housing He drew a picture of the serious position at Clairwood, and it is only just to the Town Council of Durban to say that Clairwood does not fall within the municipal area. The housing conditions there are undoubtedly very bad. What we shall be able to do I cannot now say, but I hope that the municipal council at Durban will appreciate that they have a responsibility in the matter, and that they will deal with the matter. Several hon. members have dealt with the question of overtime, and have informed the House that our overtime payments have been very high indeed. That has been particularly the case in regard to our workshops. I want to say that the taking on of men to deal with seasonal traffic in South Africa, and in that way eliminating overtime, is a matter which is not so simple as some hon. members seem to think, because they must realize that South Africa is a country with seasonal traffic. We have periods of peak traffic and periods when the traffic is under normal. The only solution appears to me to be to take more men into the service when the traffic is at its peak.

And put them on short time afterwards?

That is the South African party policy.

The hon. the Minister seems to have entirely misunderstood me. It is the only alternative—which I do not agree with.

The Government has another alternative, and it endeavours to deal with this matter on a fixed principle—not on the lines of the suggestion of my hon. friend there. That policy is wrong.

It depends very largely upon the circumstances.

I want to stress the point—it is not possible at times of peak traffic to deal with it with the staff available. We must either turn down business, or take some other step. When additional men are taken on, as soon as the peak traffic is over, we must dismiss men. It is impossible to keep men for whom you have no work. This is what the Government intends doing in regard to the workshops with a view to the possibility of increased traffic which we expect during this year. We must have all our rolling stock in good order and so we have authorized—about three weeks ago—the employment of 433 additional artizans and labourers, to work double shifts, which will mean night work. Unfortunately we have not the equipment to deal with double shifts during the day. During the period of my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), owing to his difficulties, he did not equip the workshops as they should have been equipped. We had so much leeway to make up with regard to the requirements of our workshops that it will take some time to equip them satisfactorily, although we have made considerable progress, these additional men must understand that this work is temporary, and that when the work is completed they will have to go.

When are these men to be taken on?

They are being taken on now. I have the assurance of the chief mechanical engineer that, as a result of this step which has been authorized, we shall have an increased output of engines and rolling stock, amounting to 35 per cent. We will be able to decrease overtime in the workshops from 50 to 80 per cent. I think it will be admitted that Government has taken the right step, instead of dealing with the question by allowing excessive overtime followed by short time working.

Where will this overtime be worked?

Wherever the need is greatest.

I hope you are including Bloemfontein.

If there is the necessity for it, we shall certainly include Bloemfontein. I shall be prepared to give the names of the shops at the committee stage. I would have thought that the introduction of the Railway Service Act, making the conciliation board a statutory body, would have satisfied the hon: member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). The conciliation board is doing excellent work in smoothing out the difficulties between the management and the men. There is a very reasonable spirit among the elected members of the board in whom the men have confidence. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has asked me how the tariffs on branch lines are calculated. In regard to all goods classified at rates 7 to 10, we do not split the rate, but on all goods from rate 1 to 6, the rate is split. The reply the hon. member has received about holidays for native employees sets out the policy which is being followed.

Do you propose to maintain that policy?

Yes. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) has referred to the good work done by the S.P.C.A. and has made certain statements in regard to certain employees. These cases were very fully gone into and have been disposed of. If hon. members or the society have any cases brought to their notice which they feel necessitate action, not only on the part of the police but also by the Railway Administration, we shall be glad to receive their representations. I am not, however, prepared to appoint a livestock officer, because that will be, in my opinion, a mistake. He could never adequately cover our 12,000 miles of railways. He might be on the Klaver line, while offences might be occurring at Ermelo. We have district inspectors and station masters, and it is their duty to see that there is no undue cruelty to animals. The Department very strictly applies the rule regarding feeding and watering of stock. Very often an owner asks that we should eliminate watering and feeding, but we deliberately refuse to do so in all cases on humanitarian grounds. I do not for a moment expect that the appointment of a livestock officer will improve the position. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has dealt with the question of bilingualism. I have given that matter very careful consideration. The language salary bar applies only to the clerical grades, but it has been felt, that, both in the interests of the unilingual staff and the public, it was necessary to make a forward step, and we have begun with the Natal system where the need is greatest. We have enlisted the sympathy of a lady of outstanding educational attainments, and she has offered her services free to the Department to organize classes for the railwaymen on the whole of the Natal system.

Why only Natal?

Because the clamour from Natal is the greatest.

Why leave it to her only?

Does the hon. member suppose that she is acting without consultation with the system officers?

We want more than that.

The need in Natal is Afrikaans, and I thought the fact that a lady of outstanding educational qualifications had offered her assistance free would be appreciated.

We want more teachers.

If the hon. member would only wait until I complete my statement. One of her functions is to organize classes and to appoint capable teachers to deal with the whole subject. The hon. member is full of suspicion.

No, not at all.

Hon. members opposite evidently regret Government taking this step to assist the railwaymen of Natal.

No.

I thought a word of thanks would be said.

Certainly. Why do you twist things round?

Why didn’t the hon. member wait?

I didn’t know what was coming.

We are dealing with the question in the most sympathetic manner, and the Natal railwaymen appreciate the effort far better than hon. members opposite. The men are flocking to these classes and are more than pleased that we have taken this step, which is one in the right direction, to enable the railwaymen to learn the second language. This is a very important question for the railway employees. The language bar is holding up a large number of men who cannot advance in salary and the hon. member ought to appreciate the fact that we are helping these railwaymen.

Don’t get excited. We appreciate what you are doing.

That is a very belated admission. I do not welcome that appreciation because I know it has been forced from the hon. member.

That is an insult.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has raised the question of the retirement of the general manager. I am not prepared to make a statement in regard to that now, but may later during the session be able to do so. He asked about the financial results of the grain elevator system. In 1925 we had a loss of approximately £10,000, and for the current year the loss will be in the neighbourhood of £100,000.

Is that allowing for depreciation?

Yes. But it is unfair to the system to take these figures at their face value. In 1925, when there was a record crop, the Durban port elevator was not completed. I am quite sure that, had the system been working in 1925, there would have been a profit. This year, as a result of the failure of the maize crop, the whole system has not paid, but I hope it will improve in future. I hope it is an indication to hon. members that we ought to go carefully in regard to extension. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also dealt with the question of the Port Elizabeth harbour, a question which he has dealt with on previous occasions. I hope to deal with that when the loan estimates are before the House. It is necessary to deal with the position at Port Elizabeth at an early date. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has dealt with the question of renewals and the expenditure on railway stock to the extent of £14,000,000 from the renewals fund. Well, depreciation is going on in the rolling stock and surely we are entitled to draw against the renewal fund. If we did not we should be purchasing from loan funds and depreciation would be going on all the time. I endorse the position that was taken up by my predecessor. We are entitled to finance our purchases from the renewals fund.

It is departing from the principles originally laid down by the Act of Union.

I do not admit that. It is true that we have not withdrawn vehicles at the same rate that we have purchased new ones.

Don’t you think there is a big margin?

I only wish I could purchase more from the renewals fund. I think he must admit that that is a sound policy to adopt.

What about the Department Committee?

I will deal with that when I deal with the budget. Hon. members have also dealt with the loss on the branch lines. I hope they listened carefully to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) when he dealt with this very fully. I agree with him that there is no necessity for the publication of these branch line statistics. Hon. members on the other side complain about the manner in which railway expenditure is going up, but when I introduce a measure for economy which saves £12,000 per annum, they object strongly. Any member of the House can ask for information with regard to the earnings of a particular branch line, and I will be glad to give it. Hon. members are surely not going to be so unreasonable as to ask for the publication of these statistics and at the same time press for economy. The system of calculating the earnings of branch lines is one which varies on all systems. I have decided to discontinue the publication of branch line statistics. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) referred to the excellent publicity work done in London. That was a well-deserved tribute to the young South African who is doing the publicity work in London at the present time. The appointment has been thoroughly justified, and the work at the present time is excellent.

What about this new hotel?

The hon. member must wait a little before we can think about building hotels. The hon. member asked about the motor service. I am glad to say the motor services are not only extending, but are paying their way. In December they gave us a profit of £719, and farmers on all sides will admit that they have done excellent work. I hope, as the result of this policy, which I intend to continue, that we shall hear less of the necessity for branch lines in future. Before we institute a motor service we make two conditions. The first, there must be support from all sections, town and country; and the second condition is, we ask the local bodies in Natal, Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape, through the provincial and divisional councils, to put the roads in order. If I tell the House that the roads were in such order as to make for a satisfactory running of all services, I should be saying what is not correct. All the provincial councils and divisional councils have, however, co-operated with the department, and the conditions of the roads are improving, although there is a lot of leeway to make up. I hope the councils will appreciate that the better the condition of the roads is, the cheaper we can run the service.

Have you subsidized the roads?

No, and I am not prepared to subsidize them. A word in regard to the report of the organization and development committee. I have already indicated that as a result of the action taken, we have placed the employment of civilized labour on sound lines, and I only want to refer to two matters in that regard. In the future we shall make a clear line of distinction between adults employed as labourers for purely labouring work, and—

Is that report available?

I have no objection to making that report available, but I am not prepared to publish it, because it is a very bulky volume and will cost a lot of money. I was saying that we are making a clear distinction between adults and youths. These adults must be physically fit to do labouring work. They are recruited through the Labour Department. The Labour Department only supply to us men who are physically fit to do labourers’ work. These labourers, if they have not reached the sixth standard, cannot be promoted to the graded staff, but, in order to help these men (many of whom are in the position of not having passed standard 6 without any fault on their part), we provide special educational facilities for them, and we make it a condition that if these adults attend the classes regularly we shall return the fees which they have paid. I think it will be helpful, and hon. members will be glad to hear that at De Aar one of the men who saw me was a man of 49 years of age with a large family, who had just passed standard 6 while working as a labourer. The second part of the scheme refers to the employment of youths. In future we are not going to engage youths for labouring work, except in so far as they will temporarily do the work which was formerly done by natives. They will be put through a period of test extending from six months to two years. If, during that period of test they show that they are capable of adapting themselves to work in the railway, they will be promoted to the grade of learner. It is only after passing through the apprenticeship or probationary period from the beginning, that they are promoted to the learner grade, and we hope to have, and I know that we shall have in future, a large number of men trained in the service who will be able to take the best positions in the railway service.

What is their age when they enter?

We do not like to take them before they are 16; the age is 16 and upwards. I think it was the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) who asked what opportunity there is for promotion. I say that there is every opportunity for promotion to those men in the service. In regard to youths, we give them every educational facility and make it compulsory on the employment of a youth as a probationer, that he must attend evening, classes. If he does not, he is not retained in the service. If he does attend the evening classes, the fees are refunded to him. Now that a system has been evolved by the Organization and Development Committee as amended by the Conciliation Board, the whole of which dovetails into each other, it all depends upon these youths and men what progress they make. The whole service is open to them. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has again dealt with the question of trucks under load for 12 hours. I indicated to him last year that it is quite impossible for me to accede to the request to give longer time. I cannot possibly allow a farmer to have a truck at the station for more than 12 hours. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has dealt with certain matters in regard to the Perishable Products Board, which I will refer to on a later stage, and he has also asked me to deal with the mail contract at the earliest possible date. Surely the hon. member knows that the mail contract is still in existence, and will not terminate until such time as the Government or the Union Castle Company gives 12 months notice.

You have been negotiating.

We certainly have been negotiating in the interests of the people of South Africa, and we shall continue to negotiate, but the Government will not come to any conclusion until such time as they are satisfied that the interests of the people of South Africa are safeguarded. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has asked me about facilities for young men in our workshops. He has given the reply himself by quoting to the House the figures as to the number of apprentices in South Africa when the previous Government left office, and the number of apprentices at the present day. The number of apprentices in our shops, both private and Government, has increased enormously. We certainly are giving every facility for young men to be trained in the shops. The number varies every year with our requirements. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has, as he usually does every year, criticized the policy of civilized labour very severely, and has said—

Now just let me ask the hon. member a question which I hope he will consider fair. The Government which he followed were in office for 14 years—how did they deal with this question of the unemployment of Europeans? Does he want the present Government to continue the policy of the old Government, or does he suggest some other remedy?

What did they do all that time?

They worked on relief works. Let me tell my hon. friend that what happened also was that they left the country in batches. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows that best as ex-Minister of the Interior. He knows that white people were leaving the country in larger numbers than they were coming in.

They are now.

No, that is not so. We have stopped the rot.

Oh, no.

You have “stopped the rot” by introducing Lithuanians.

Are they not coming in under the legislation of the old Government? The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has made many foolish statements in this House, but I think that is one of the most foolish he has ever made. The Government is not vet satisfied in regard to the position of Europeans coming into this country. We are not prepared to go back to the old policy of drift. We are not prepared to assist these unfortunate people by way of relief works, paying them doles, and in that way degrading them. A man receiving a dole is very near the position that he is not the best citizen.

What about the men who are starving? What about the letter I read last night?

The hon. member asks me to believe that a man is starving with 5s. a day and a free house, and all the other privileges of the railwayman. I cannot, for one moment, believe that these men are starving. Does the hon. member remember the streams of people who came to this House when he talks about starving people? We are not prepared to depart from the policy of civilized labour.

Why are there so many people on the diamond diggings?

Because they believe that it is very profitable to them. It is unfortunately the South African desire to get rich quickly. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) also dealt with the question of the rate on wool. Let me remind him that this matter has been dealt with. We are giving a reduction of 10 per cent. on three quarter bales, and under present circumstances I am not prepared to go further. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) asked me about improvements for East London Harbour. He will have to wait until we get to the Loan Estimates, and then see whether we can do something in that regard. I regret to see from the newspaper that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has been called to Caledon on public business, and is unfortunately not able to be in the House. That cannot prevent me from dealing with the very important question which he has raised. He has made an attack on the Perishable Products Control Board, and other hon. members have followed suit. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) in this regard. He talked of an insoluble problem, and because of that stated that we should abolish the Act and not give the fruit farmers the services of business men.

What business men have you given them?

I am prepared to give you the names. There is the chairman, Mr. le Roux, a successful business man.

He is not a business man at all.

I make bold to say he would never make such a stupid statement as the hon. member has done. He knows far more about business than the hon. member.

You know he is not a, business man.

Let me just repeat the solution of the hon. member for Newlands. He said—

I ask any fruit farmer in this House, or in the country, do they desire to go back to the old conditions? Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) want to do so?

They desire to put the whole control in the hands of the fruit exchange.

I shall deal with my right hon. friend at a later stage. The right hon. member was very voluble last year, but he did not dare to raise his voice this year. I know why, I will give him the reason at once. It is because he knows that I have in my possession a letter dated the 8th of March from the Cooperative Fruit Exchange for the whole of the Union. This letter was sent to me quite unsolicited.

That is not what I am talking about.

But that is what I am talking about. Let me read the letter—

This letter is signed by Mr. H. E. V. Pickstone as general manager. If there is one man capable of speaking for the fruit farmers, it is Mr. Pickstone.

Now don’t get ratty.

I have several points to bring home to my hon. friend there at a later stage. He need not be afraid of my getting ratty. I ask him, and also the hon. member for Caledon, and the hon. member for Newlands, do they realize what they are doing? They are attempting to destroy the confidence of the fruit farmers in the control board. I want, at this stage, to pay a tribute to the leaders of the fruit exchange. The leaders of the exchange were in direct conflict with the proposals of the Government last year, but when these proposals had been carried by the House, the fruit exchange, at their general meeting, at once passed a resolution pledging their support to the Perishable Products Control Board. I pay tribute to that. When this matter now is raised for political purposes, I pay tribute again to Mr. Pickstone, Mr. Dicey, Mr. Smuts and other gentlemen connected with the fruit exchange. They have placed this matter above party politics; they are protecting the interests of the fruit growers. Take the position of the hon. member for Caledon. He was given an opportunity of discussing this whole matter with the chairman of the Perishable Products Board. Did he avail himself of that opportunity?

It was only for half an hour in the lobby.

No, the chairman said to him—

He never took that opportunity, and he now comes into the House and makes an attack simply for political purposes. Is this problem insoluble? It may be insoluble to a man of the mentality of the hon. member for Newlands, but let me tell him that to the members of the Perishable Products Board, of which Mr. Buller, a farmer, is a very distinguished member, it is not. They do not consider this to be an insoluble problem. It is certainly a difficult problem, as the conditions under which fruit has been exported this year amply proved. But for party politicians to stand up in this House—

Here is a letter from one of the sufferers.

Of course, people are suffering at the present time, but I make this deliberate statement, and I challenge any hon. member to deny it—the Perishable Control Board acted in the closest co-operation with the fruit growers themselves, and did their best under the circumstances.

They are not above criticizm.

I do not object to criticizm, if it is fair and honest.

This is honest. Where else can we go to, to criticize a Government body?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister entitled to question the honesty of hon. members on this side of the House?

I did not understand the hon. member to do that; certainly he is not entitled to question the honesty of any hon. member of the House.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the honesty of criticizm. Is the hon. member (Mr. Marwick) asleep? I know he is usually busy delving into old documents and Hansard, but when he is in this House and wants to take part in the discussion I ask him to keep awake. I want to give a case in point where dishonest criticizm has been levied in this House, and that is the criticizm of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), where he dealt with the Bendigo and Llandaff Castle.

I do not think the hon. member is entitled to say that an hon. member is guilty of dishonest criticism.

I am certainly prepared to withdraw, but I certainly say this—that hon. members make extraordinary statements. Let me test one statement made by the hon. member for Newlands. From the official statement the hon. member read, it appears—

The position was that the control board was committed to all the refrigerated space on the Llandaff Castle and the Bendigo—an Australian boat—and found that as a result of fruit not coming in they would not be able to fill both ships, and they asked the Bendigo owners to cancel the space. Owners of the Bendigo replied—

Under those circumstances, what was the hoard to do? They approached the Union-Castle Company, and said—

and that was done. The statement of the board goes on to say—

You have not read the letter.

I am reading their statement.

Do you deliberately say that the space on the Llandaff was not cancelled on the 24th February?

I have made that clear. The Perishables Board endeavoured, by cable, as they could not fill both, to be released from the space on the Australian boat, which was refused, and they then cancelled the refrigerated space on the Llandaff Castle.

On the 2nd of February they had a meeting with these other gentlemen, and then decided to cancel the space either on the Bendigo or the Llandaff.

The hon. member reads into the letter what does not appear in my copy— it may appear in his copy. I am referring to the copy I have here.

Will the Minister give way for one minute? After the Minister has referred to my criticism as “dishonest,” it is only fair to read the whole of the letter written by the board.

The hon. member is allowed only to make a personal explanation.

My personal explanation is, I am prepared to submit that letter to anyone—

That is not a personal explanation.

If that appears in the statement the hon. member has before him, I can only say it does not appear in the copy I have. I was entitled to criticize the hon. member for the statement he made.

What was the result on the fruit?

If the hon. member knew something about it he would know that when fruit cannot be exported the agents are notified, and they can deal with it as they think fit. With regard to this whole matter, I think that if hon. members had taken the trouble to approach the Perishables Board, on which the deciduous fruit farmers have a representative in Mr. Buller, all this criticizm would not have been levied, and in that way endangered the confidence which is so essential if the trade has to be carried on in a proper manner. I now want to say a few words about electrification.

You have not dealt with maize rate.

I have dealt with it ad nauseam, and I cannot help it if the hon. member was somewhere else. The gist of the whole trouble in Natal, to my mind, clearly resolves itself into this. The Administration asked and McLellan to examine the whole problem of electrification between Maritzburg and Durban. Plans and specifications were completed and laid before the Administration. My hon. friend visited Natal, and after examining the whole position, came to the conclusion that it was a mistake, and that the line should be electrified north of Maritzburg. The time which was given to the consulting engineers, to prepare the new estimates for the 171 miles of electrification north of Maritzburg was, however, too short.

We told them to hurry up, but there was no definite time mentioned.

The hon. member pressed them very hard to present their report. What was the result? In the pressure they quite forgot to make the necessary provision at Mason’s Mill, Maritzburg, and the yard extensions at Glencoe, and other works were left out. That was the result of the pressure brought to bear on the consulting engineers.

I think you are rather exaggerating the pressure.

I do not say that this is the only reason for all these extra costs. Of course, there were other reasons which subsequently occurred, and the select committee has gone into them.

And their finding is different to what you are now telling us.

I did not sit on that committee although I am a member of it. That was the main cause, but there were other reasons which added to the additional expense, such as dual control, and so on, but at any rate that was the root cause. If the consulting engineers had had sufficient time to prepare the estimates much of the excess would not have happened.

Why did they not say so at the time?

That is a question which you should address to them. I certainly blame them for not bringing it to the hon. member’s notice that they had not had sufficient time.

They must take the responsibility.

But my hon. friend was responsible as the Minister, for the pressure brought to bear on them.

I think you exaggerate.

I am sorry I cannot give the results of the financial working of the electrified system, but about four months ago I gave instructions for the financial results to be taken out and I hope shortly to be able to give the House the information. However, as there is so much misunderstanding in regard to this, I want to give a few figures. The average miles run by the electric units are 7,000 miles as compared with 2,600 miles by the heavier steam engines. The hours in traffic per day, electric units, 20 hours; steam engines, 12 hours. The average percentage of electric units out of traffic for repairs is 6 per cent.; steam locomotives 21 per cent. That comparison is not quite fair to the steam locomotives, because a large number of them are no longer new. Average daily down traffic, including passenger trains, hauled south of Ladysmith during recent period of four months—electric unit 25,000 tons gross.

Does that include Sundays?

Yes.

What does “gross” mean?

The weight of the train included. The highest amount of tonnage hauled on one day by electric units was 26,700 tons gross. All this traffic was moved by 78 electric units. We have ordered 17 additional units, which means that we shall have a total of 95. Then we shall be able to get an average of 30,000 tons a day quite easily, if not more, and with additional trains we could handle 35,000tons a day. I think the House will agree that this is very satisfactory indeed. The statement made by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) is not strictly correct. I understood him to say that we had the greatest difficulty in moving 27,000 tons a day on two consecutive days. We are prepared to deal with all the traffic which is offering, but the traffic is not offering. We can deal with the position quite satisfactorily up to a limit of 30,000 tons.

Can you handle all the coal that comes along?

Yes, we are taking everything that is being offered. I now want to deal with the two statements made by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) who represents a railway constituency, and therefore should be able to know what he is talking about.

He does.

The hon. member stated that during the financial year 1924 the importation of rolling stock increased while the output from the shops decreased as compared with previous years, and he also gave figures for 1925 which gave the same result. I would ask him, as a practical man, whether he holds the present Administration responsible for the 1924 result. Surely he appreciates that the cut-put from the workshops during 1924 was dependent on the action of my predecessor in placing the orders in the shops. I am glad to see my hon. friend is receding from his position with regard to 1924.

I stand by the facts of the Auditor-General’s report.

I do not dispute the facts but they are due to the action of my predecessor. I will now deal with 1925. Does he know the first action of the new Administration was to put the men on full time and take more men into the workshops? Does the hon. member appreciate what he said when he attacked the administration for the output in 1925? Either it must be true that the railwaymen were not giving good service, and were slacking, or there must have been circumstances which made the result inevitable. He cannot get away from that position. Now I want to say the hon. member knows what the conditions were, perfectly well, namely, that our rolling stock was not up to date in regard to repairs.

They are not up to date yet.

We were forced to deal with the maize traffic offered and to do that we had to get practically all our men on repair work and that was the only reason why the output was not so great. The hon. member comes here misrepresenting the railwaymen. I withdraw the statement that the hon. member misrepresents the constituency but he does not adequately represent it. The hon. member knows that, as a result of the action of the administration in placing the repair work in the shops, it was not possible to turn out more new rolling stock. He knows, because I have stated in the House repeatedly that the workshops will be kept fully employed for two years. I here will be no necessity for any overtime or retrenchment during that period of two years, yet he comes here and gravely reflects on the efficiency of the railwaymen. I ask the hon. member, who now defends the late Minister and attacks this administration, whether he remembers the short time and retrenchment which took place under the previous Minister? In the face of the fact that the men have been placed on full time and new hands being taken on, he makes these irresponsible statements. The hon. member has gone further and has read to this House a circular sent by the general manager on the instruction of the Railway Board to the heads of departments. I want to put this question to him. Is he prepared to tell the House where he got that information?

That is not the point. The question is, is it correct?

I am going to deal with it and I am going to lay that circular on the Table of the House and to challenge members to say whether they agree with the circular or not. No. He is not prepared to give the source of his information and yet hon. members on the opposite side prate about discipline in the service when a member occupying a responsible position obtains a document which he knows is addressed to the heads of departments and uses it here. He is undermining the discipline of the service and is not doing the railwaymen of South Africa a service. I stand by every word of the circular. That policy is the accepted policy of this Government. I want him to communicate that to his friends who gave him the information which he should not have used. The policy is that we shall give our railwaymen fair play and a square deal. We shall look after their position with regard to wages, housing and pensions, but we shall not allow any slackness on the part of any employee or officer. If employees or officers are not prepared to give their best service to the railway administration and as such to the State, we have no place for them in the service. I say so deliberately. When the hon. member talked as he did, it is difficult for me to control my language. The hon. member said, I use his words—

I say that that is a distorted interpretation.

Let us see what it says when it is on the Table.

The hon. member knows what it says; he has read it. The hon. member has given it to the press in full.

On a point of order, the Minister stated I have given that statement to the press. I did not give it to the press.

If the hon. member has not given it, I accept his statement on that point; but the press has it, and I want to say to the leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

Those hon. members pretend to be concerned about the interests of the service and the State, but at the same time they take every opportunity to distort and place the position before the country in a wrong light.

You are too excited to talk sense.

I have another point to put to the hon. member. He referred to the retirement of Mr. Collett, who served the Administration loyally for many years. He objects to that. Does the hon. member forget what occurred on the 14th of May, 1923, when my predecessor agreed to a certain Mr. F. T. Bates, of Uitenhage, retiring from the service at the age of 47 just before the general election . . .?

On a question of personal explanation I want to say this. They did not give me special permission to retire. I resigned from the service.

Without a penny benefit.

When the House adjourned I understood the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) to say that he had resigned from the service, and had not applied for retirement. I can only say that the official documents which I hold in my hand, and which I am prepared to show to the hon. member, indicate the following: Mr. Bates, who applied for retirement, is a member of the Cape fixed establishment, and is a contributor to the Pension Fund. He is 47 years of age, joined the service on 14th May, 1900, etc. He has become entitled to a gratuity of a certain amount. The official documents do not signify that the hon. member tendered his resignation, but that he applied for his retirement.

On a point of personal explanation, if the officials would look they would find my letter of resignation, and also copy of a letter from the mechanical engineer at Uitenhage, where he says he is in receipt of my resignation of such and such a date. I hope the Minister will be fair about this, because it is a personal matter. It has been suggested that I received preferential treatment. As a matter of fact, when I was approached to stand for (Uitenhage, I was under the impression that the regulations provided that railwaymen could stand, and, if not elected, the time so lost would be counted as leave without pay. After I had been selected as candidate, I was informed that legal opinion had been taken, and that if I wished to stand I must resign before I was nominated. I resigned from the service. I hope the Minister will be manly enough to withdraw the statement that I received preferential treatment.

I never made the statement that the hon. member (Mr. Bates) received preferential treatment.

What is the insinuation then?

All I did was to state the facts, and I repeat again, as the hon. member knows perfectly well that if he had resigned he could not have received a gratuity. That is the essential fact which the hon. member must appreciate. I won’t carry the matter any further, except to state that these are the facts.

I have explained to the Minister that I did resign, and that I received from the Administration acknowledgment of my resignation.

I want to be fair to the hon. member, but surely he appreciates the position. If he had resigned he would not have become entitled to a gratuity. He does not deny that he did actually receive a gratuity. Consequently, I am right in saying that he did not resign, as far as the official papers are concerned. I do not say he did not write such a letter. I want now to deal with the question of the importation of rails from Belgium. I desire, in this regard, first of all, to state what the policy of the board is in regard to the purchase of our requirements oversea. I have, on a previous occasion indicated to the House, from the records available—we had no (Hansard—that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on more than one occasion—and I am prepared to give the dates again, if required—said that his policy was to buy in the cheapest market. The policy of the present board and Minister is not one to buy in the cheapest market, but to buy always to the best advantage.

Oh. You have not succeeded very well yet.

I will deal with that a little later on. The policy is to purchase to the best advantage in the interests of the Administration. There are three considerations which the board takes into account, before it accepts tenders. The first is price, the second is quality, which is equally important, and the third is time of delivery.

And the fourth is, buy outside the British empire whenever you can.

I will deal with that subject at once. Now, we have had hon. members on the other side protesting most vehemently against the policy of the present Government in purchasing rails in Belgium and other continental countries. I have gone to the trouble to take out the returns for the last year of my hon. friend’s (Mr. Jagger’s) administration. Here are the facts: In January, 1924, he purchased 50 miles of 80 lb. rails from Krupp, Germany; in February, 1924, he purchased 39 miles from a Belgian firm; in February, 1924, he purchased from the very same company who have now supplied the rails which are defective, 70 miles of 60 lb. rails; in February, 1924, again 50 miles from Krupp; in April, 1924, 130 miles from Krupp; in April, 1924, again, 37 miles from Thyssen; and in April, 1924, a further 79 miles of rails from Thyssen. I have been asked whether the Belgian concern is the company that supplied us with these defective rails. The reply is in the affirmative.

They must have been of better quality then.

I hope my hon. friend there appreciates these facts in relation to their alleged policy of purchasing within the Empire! Here are the facts given in summarized form; a total of 455 miles of various sections of rails purchased on the Continent, the f.o.b value of which is approximately £266,000.

All outside the Empire.

On many occasions when we were sitting over there I asked the late Minister where he was purchasing his requirements, and he quite frankly said that he was purchasing it in the cheapest market. I am entitled to say that all this is political propaganda. It is worse; it is nothing but rank racialism. For months now the Press, more especially in Natal and here, have been feeding the unfortunate public with statements that this Government is anti-British, buying outside material, when all the time they must have known, as hon. members there know, that that was the policy of the late Minister. I repeat again that we have not purchased any rails through the High Commissioner except of the B.S.S. standard. That was the policy which my hon. friend carried out; and that is the policy I am carrying out at the present time. I now want to deal with the question of engines. Here we have the same cry, that we have been purchasing outside the British Empire. Let me give the figures of the purchases during the last three years. I give the year 1925. The purchases from the British Empire, that is Great Britain and the Dominions, amounted to £3,386,000. That is all materials purchased, rolling stock etc. The purchases from outside the British Empire amounted to £1,846,000. In 1926 it is common knowledge that Great Britain had the coal strike. Conditions in Great Britain caused difficulty to the manufacturers, and consequently the figure is less favourable to Great Britain. In 1926 we purchased from Great Britain and Dominions to the value of £2,421,000, and from outside to the value of £2,312,000. What does that indicate to the House? Surely it must indicate that there is no ground for the accusation that this Government is actuated by any anti-British feeling. I go further and I say that in view of our relations with Great Britain, in view of the fact that Great Britain offers us a very good market for our produce, in view of the fact that our financial relations are very large in Great Britain, and in view of the fact that we have had, speaking generally, excellent value from British manufacturers, under these conditions we have not gone outside Great Britain except when we were forced to do so by conditions over which we have no control.

You do not agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) then?

I certainly do not. When he tells us what certain British writers of note say in books and newspapers all I can say is that—

But I do say this, that a nation like the British nation, which after this terrible war tackled their financial problems and obligations in the manner in which they did, is not a decadent nation. As far as the Government is concerned we will continue a policy which will be sympathetic to the purchasing in Great Britain. At the same time it must be understood that unless the House is prepared to alter the Act of Union and to say that we should make our purchases on sentimental grounds I say the Railway Administration is bound to carry out the principles of the Act of Union and purchase our requirements as described. I regret that the hon. member for Capetown (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) when he dealt with this question did not give the House full information—I do not say deliberately—and the same remark applies to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir Wm. Macintosh). Just let me give the facts with regard to the performance of engines in service. This information has been placed on the Table of the House about a month ago and is available to all members. The hon. member has so muddled up this question of engine purchase that he has made statements which are absolutely incorrect. If the hon. member will refer to his speech as reported in the English morning paper—and my notes confirm it—he is reported to have said that between 1923 and 1925 American engines were purchased.

I said engines were purchased in 1911.

I did not hear that, but I accept his statement. In 1911 certain engines were purchased in America. These were never satisfactory until the time when my predecessor decided to convert them. After the conversion they have given fair satisfaction. These were the Mallet engines, and the record which the hon. member quoted refers to these. In 1917 Mr. Burton placed certain orders in Canada. They were built at Montreal. These engines were ordered in 1917, and arrived in 1918-T9, and they were undoubtedly defective as far as the boilers were concerned. The company dealt handsomely by the Administration, and again these engines after being adjusted are giving us satisfaction. The next step was in 1924, when after a visit by one of our officials to the United States, he came back and designed certain new engines. These engines are the engines known as the Karroo and the Mountain type. We then ordered four of these engines to the design of our official in consultation with the engineer of the Baldwin Company in the U.S.A. These four engines have given us satisfaction to the very fullest extent. Following on the excellent results we were getting from these we purchased fifteen additional engines from the same firm at a lower price. If hon. members will refer to the record given in the return they will find that these nineteen engines have given us excellent service. Let me give the results for some of these engines. Engine No. 2060. mileage before first repair, 28,837; total mileage to October, 1926, 48,159. No. 2061, mileage before first repair, 42,873; total mileage 44,301. Then the Karroo type, engine No. 860, 39,056 miles before first repair; 58,139 miles to the end of October, 1926. These nineteen engines have given us every satisfaction, are in service at the present time and we have no reason to regret their purchase. Owing to the fact that we required further engines we went into the market for 23 additional engines, and we then felt that we should ask for public tenders, and not negotiate privately with the Baldwin Company. Tenders were received. Particulars have been placed on the Table and members have the full information. The Railway Board, after very careful consideration of all the facts, decided to place the order with the American Locomotive Company. There would be a saving, and the company being one of high standing, it was thought it was perfectly safe for us to place the order there. The 23 American engines were received, but the castings were not sound. These have now been replaced at the cost of the company, and some of the engines are in service, and they are giving excellent service. A word with regard to the German engines. We were again in the market for 57 engines, and asked for world-wide tenders. Four of the lowest tenders were passed over because they were not satisfactory, and the next lowest tender was that of Krupp and Hanomag tendering together. The next lowest tender was the tender of the three firms, Beyer and Peacock, Henschel and Sohn, and Maffei. These three in combination tendered for these engines and their price was approximately £22,000 higher than the tender of Krupp and Hanomag. The Tender Board took the view that it would be advisable to accept the tender of this combination. They were dividing the construction of the engines between them. The Board came to the conclusion that we should save the money, as we had made full enquiries and it appeared that the firm of Hanomag had built locomotives for many years, and were a well-known firm of locomotive builders.

Have we had locomotives before from this firm?

We have not had locomotives from this firm before, but they have supplied locomotives to all parts of the world. Krupps came into the business of building engines only lately.

I am not quite clear on that statement. Were the Tender Board’s recommendations overridden?

Yes, I have said so. The Tender Board recommended that the tender of the three firms in combination, which I have mentioned, should be accepted, but the Railway Board were satisfied that we could get good quality and good workmanship and the price was in favour of the firm whose tender was accepted.

Was not the chief mechanical engineer and the chief railway storekeeper in favour of the engines of the combination?

They are members of the Tender Board, and they were in favour of accepting the tender of the three combination firms.

The papers are not clear on that—why they were not favourable.

Their view was mainly—

The Railway Board overrode these officers—these technical men?

The tenders of the two firms which were accepted, it is perfectly clear, complied in every respect with our requirements, and our technical officers advized us as far as the specifications were concerned. The tender was in order, and we decided that under these circumstances, we would not be justified in placing the order with the combination firm, and losing £22,000.

Then the Railway Board does not place confidence in the technical officers?

What is the Railway Board there for? They are not a rubber stamp to the officials. The hon. member might consult his friend there (Mr. Jagger), and ask him whether he always agreed with the reports of the technical officers. We asked the officers to come to Pretoria, and we thrashed the matter out very thoroughly before we came to a decision.

You did not convince them.

My hon. friend will understand, that when officers appear before the Board, we do not ask them to change their opinion. That would be most irregular. Whatever may have been the practice in the past, I would not countenance that.

And the result is scrapped engines and engines months out of work.

I am glad to see that my hon. friend is now recovering. I may say that probably we may be in the market again, and I hope that when we do ask for world-wide tenders again, and British firms tender, their price will be such that their tenders may be considered. But I do say, when hon. members, as they have done, say to the House and to the country that because engines have been ordered in America one must presume they must be bad that that is absurd. In America and Canada there is 300,000 miles of railways, and all the locomotives on those railways are built in America and Canada. It would be extraordinary if America and Canada can build engines for 300,000 miles of railway, but cannot build for our 12,000 miles.

Which are the best engines? —that is the point.

There is one other point which I regret the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) did not further develop, and that is that our experience with regard to these American engines is not unique. My hon. friend saw that in the statement, Let me say quite deliberately that I have no intention of giving information which will damage any British firms, but when hon. members make the statement that all British engines received were satisfactory and that there are no complaints—that was the inference —I must give the House the information with regard to the experience we have had with new engines. This information has been supplied by the chief mechanical engineer through the general manager. There is practically nothing to choose between the engines from the Baldwin works and those of British manufacture. With newly designed engines it is almost universally the case that certain parts give trouble, and adjustments have to be made. The four experimental Baldwin engines developed side-play rather rapidly. Garratt engines of British manufacture developed hot boxes, and the Administration designed new bogies. The G.E. class of Garratt engines gave similar trouble. Recently imported German 15A engines have given trouble with their steel fire-boxes, and engines from the North British Locomotive Works and other big companies have given trouble in the same direction as the German engines. Eighth class engines gave considerable trouble with breakage of frames, and tenth class with hot bearings.

these engines were built to your own design.

That does not mean that they may not develop defects. I do not say that British firms are inferior. The experience we have had, and which my predecessor (Mr. Jagger) had, with engines built to our design, was that they gave trouble in the initial stages. I now want to give the comparative costs between the American and British engines. It is reported—

Are the British engines of the same power?

No British seventeenth class engines were built. I have no doubt that if British firms built engines to the same design they would do so successfully. They have certainly built far bigger engines for the British railways than for our three foot six gauge. In lubrication costs there has been a saving of 27 per cent. Let me give the repair cost, which is even more remarkable. According to the latest completed figures, the cost in the case of the mountain and Karroo types per mile is 3.5d., whereas in the British fifteenth and sixteenth classes it is 9.04d., or 61 per cent. less in favour of the mountain and Karroo types. There are just two other subjects with which I want to deal, and the first is the contract entered into by the Railway Administration with the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). Now before I make comment on that transaction, I first want to tell the House what took place in this regard. At the beginning of the year the hon. member for Vrededorp approached me and said he understood from the Consul-General of the Argentine that there was an opportunity of purchasing Quebracho sleepers for the railways. I informed the hon. member at once that—

The hon. member did so, and discussed the matter with the general manager, who put up a recommendation to the Board, as the result of which the document, dated 27th March, was drawn up by the general manager. When this preliminary understanding had been arrived as the basis on which an agreement might possibly be arrived at, the hon. member went, I presume, to negotiate with the coal owners. As far as his negotiations with the coal owners are concerned those were conducted on his own responsibility. I hope hon. members appreciate that the whole basis necessary for the opening up of trade with the Argentine depends on the freight for the voyage there and back. The previous Government made the attempt, and sent Mr. Zoutendyk, a public servant, to investigate—I am not quarrelling about that— they were perfectly right in trying to open up trade with the Argentine. Nothing however resulted, because there was no return cargo. The hon. member for Vrededorp realized the tremendous opportunity of opening up trade with the Argentine, and, I presume, in consultation with the Argentine Consul took steps. After the session was over the matter came before the Railway Board.

Was the hon. member given a document?

Yes, on the 27th March, the general manager gave him a document setting out the lines on which an agreement might be arrived at.

Which he produced to the coal owners?

Probably he did. I presume he said to them—

On the strength of which he made certain financial arrangements.

That is a matter on which I am not informed, and is totally outside the knowledge of the railway administration. The board was consulted at every step. The general manager and the following officials were also consulted on the terms of the contract; the chief Civil engineer; the chief accountant, the chief railway storekeeper, who is the official purchaser, and the assistant general manager at Johannesburg, all these officers were directly consulted on the terms of the contract and the negotiations were carried on by the hon. member for Vrededorp with these officers and only in its final form did the agreement come before the Board, and I then had same submitted to the law advisers before signature.

Did you consult the Cabinet?

Does the hon. member desire that I should give him information on Cabinet matters? I understand he aspires to Cabinet rank, but I would suggest to him that if he does he might study the first principles of a Cabinet procedure. We were advised that there was nothing in the agreement, as far as the law advisers could see, which would prevent us from entering into this contract. I want again to say that the coal contract was entered into on the sole responsibility of the hon. member for Vrededorp. In considering this matter the Board also agreed not to raise the export coal rate for a period of three years. That decision was taken because we were informed that there should be a stabilized price which the hon. member could quote when he went to the Argentine.

Was it a special rate for that coal?

No, that was discussed but declined. Hon. members have asked why we entered into this contract. We wanted to extend our market for purchasing sleepers; that is a step the necessity for which my predecessor also realized. Tenders were previously asked for Argentine sleepers, it being generally recognized that they are good, but no tenders were forthcoming. Let me reply to a question by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) who delved into Hansard and read certain questions which I asked my predecessor in 1923. In 1923 my hon. friend ordered too many sleepers in Australia and refused to purchase sleepers in South Africa. I am interested in woodcutters, and asked—

We deal in these matters on fixed lines of policy. That policy is to purchase every sleeper offered in the Union. A further point is this. We are giving opportunities to our neighbouring State, Rhodesia, to supply sleepers, and have just entered into a contract there. The definite policy of this Administration is—

We say we are in South Africa and must assist each other.

Are you buying from the producers in Rhodesia or from a speculator?

We are buying from the people who are working the forests in Rhodesia; I think it is Timbers Limited. We are purchasing from the company exploiting the forest.

Did the hon. member for Vrededorp exploit his forest?

The second reason for entering into the contract was because the quality of the Argentine sleeper is excellent and gives long service. On the point of quality we safeguarded the interests of the Administration by sending one of our most experienced engineers, Mr. Heberden, from British Guiana in order to satisfy the administration that when we did purchase Argentine sleepers they would be good.

Why didn’t he buy for you?

Does the hon. member suggest that we should authorize our officers to purchase sleepers?

Better than members of Parliament.

There was a further consideration which weighed with the Administration— we considered it to be desirable that trade relations should be opened between the Argentine and South Africa. I have been very much surprised at the attitude taken up by hon. members. I can understand their objection to members of Parliament contracting with the Government, but I cannot understand why they cry stinking fish with regard to our efforts to open up trade relations. Do hon. members opposite deny that?

Certainly.

Let me refresh their memory and refer to the very impertinent remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) who referred to the people of the Argentine as Dagoes. I feel ashamed that an hon. member of this House should have so little sense of responsibility that he could make a remark of that kind regarding a respected independent nation like the Argentine people.

Did you feel ashamed at the reference to Australians this afternoon by one of your own friends?

What reference?

As being the descendants of convicts and bushrangers.

I did not hear that remark, and I am quite prepared to say—

Other hon. members interrupting with questions.

This continuous debate across the floor of the House by means of question and answer is not in order.

I did not hear that remark, and, if made, am certainly not in agreement with it. I want to reply to the question why the contract failed. It failed because when my hon. friend arrived in the Argentine he found that the price he quoted to us—a very favourable price which would have given us an excellent sleeper at a very low price—had risen by 2/6 to 3/- per sleeper. The Argentine railways had decided to extend their lines, and the price of tannin had gone up, and it had become more profitable to cut down the whole tree rather than to sell it as sleepers. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), in his own inimitable way, has said that this contract is indecent and scandalous. I sat patiently listening for him to provide the proof. Did he provide any proof? He said that he found the interests of the administration had been protected in every way.

I still say so.

On the admission of the hon. member there is nothing indecent and there is nothing scandalous in the terms of the contract.

I quite agree.

I am glad to have that admission. What then is the indecent and scandalous nature of this contract? I may say in passing that I regard the remark of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that this was a dummy contract with the scorn and contempt which it deserves. In the view of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout it was indecent and scandalous for a member of this House to contract with the Government.

Undoubtedly.

It is the statement of the hon. member that it is indecent and scandalous for any member of the House, on whatever side— (Minister interrupted by uproar)—I want to say this, that I have listened now for two and a half days to this debate, and I am not prepared to give way unless it is a point of order. The hon. member admitted that what I said was correct until the hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) warned him. I use his actual words—

Don’t put words in my mouth I didn’t use, and then use your followers to prevent me from replying.

If there is nothing in the terms of the contract itself which is scandalous and indecent, it must be because a member of Parliament was contracting. Perhaps it was because the hon. member was chairman of the Railway Committee.

Do you defend that?

The hon. member went further than that. He said that no member of Parliament should have contractual relations with the Government.

I didn’t use the word “indecent” in regard to that.

That is my interpretation. He began by calling this indecent and scandalous, and I tested it with regard to the terms of the contract. This leaves only the fact that the member of the Government party who is chairman of the Railway Committee contracted, and the hon. member says that was indecent and scandalous, and went further and condemned all contractual relations between members of Parliament and the Government.

I said it was not an advisable thing to do.

Why does the hon. member run away from his previous position? Has the hon. member got some inkling of what I am going to say now? These purists, these people who have never soiled their hands with any contract of this kind, these gentlemen standing in white sheets before the country, let me hear their comment on this.

Now for the awful example.

In the month of December 1926, Messrs. J. W. Jagger & Co., Cape Town, were successful tenderers for the following [laughter and uproar] I thought my friend had an inkling and that is why the hon. member is trying to run away, but I want to give the particulars because they are interesting. It is not a million contract, but only amounts to about £500. Three thousand yards of black and white check cotton, £135 18s. 9d.; 2,000 yards of khaki drill, £88 10s.; 2,000 yards dark blue Army over-coating. . . .

Any Union Jacks?

I have not the least doubt my hon. friend, if the Railway Administration were foolish enough to ask tenders for Union Jacks, would tender and get his supplies either from Germany or Japan. The figure of the last order was £466 5s. These, sir, are the gentlemen who say—

I don’t want to refer to the land transactions of the previous Government, but I could do so. I refer to the land transactions of the previous Government with Mr. J. F. van Wyk, S.A.P., member for Riversdale, when the Government purchased his farm and that of his brother for £70,000 which will now probably be written down to £35,000. This contract with the member for Vrededorp has been entered into absolutely on sound lines in the interests of the country. Hon. members may differ, and say it is not proper, it is not desirable that contracts should be entered into between members of any political party in the House and the Government. There is something to be said for that view, but every case must be treated on its merits, and there is no justification for any of the statements and allegations that have been made in the House.

Was that tender submitted to the Tender Board?

Didn’t I tell the hon. member that the chief civil engineer, the chief accountant, the chief storekeeper, and the general manager had been consulted?

Where is the report?

They were favourable.

Where is the report?

I have got the report.

Where is it?

Does the hon. member suggest we should place on the Table all the papers that passed between the Administration and the officers concerned?

The Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Defence, said it was submitted in the ordinary way to the Tender Board.

He made that statement, certainly, which I corrected, and he corrected it himself, and he said the chief members of the Tender Board were consulted. I was pressed for more information with regard to the financial position of the railways, and I want to deal with that before sitting down. The results for January showed a profit of £184,000, so that the deficit at the end of January has been wiped out and we have a surplus of £53,680.

As my name was brought forward I would like to say I think that tender was sent by my Johannesburg people, and not Cape Town. I had no knowledge of it, though I had no knowledge of it.

I never said that anything was irregular.

I want to make it quite clear that as far as I am concerned, as a member of Parliament, I had absolutely no knowledge of it.

With the leave of the House, I may say that perhaps I was not explicit enough on the point. When I gave the information I did not desire to indicate that there was anything wrong in the action of the hon. member.

Well, then, why give it as an analogy?

I move—

Perhaps hon. members will not be sorry now to be able to accompany me into the calmer waters of general finance. A few weeks ago, in introducing the Additional Estimates, I informed the House what the prospects for the coming financial year were likely to be. I can only add at this stage that revenue, under all heads, continues to come in very freely, and I hope the surplus will be considerably more than was estimated a few weeks ago. I do not think it necessary to discuss at this stage the expenditure and estimates which hon. members have before them. We shall shortly have an opportunity to do so when we deal with the Budget. These estimates total £27,438,000, which figure, if we take the revised expenditure estimates for the current year, is only slightly in excess of that figure—an increase of £400,000 over the estimates of last year, but only £60,000 in excess of the actual estimated expenditure for the current financial year. The Part Appropriation Bill, which hon. members have before them, and for which I ask them to agree to the second reading, asks for three months’ supply. That will take us to the end of June. Members will see that the Bill merely gives the Government a vote on account of services which were provided for in the estimates of the previous year, and for continuing services included in the Loan Estimate of the present year. The request is for £7,750,000 on the revenue account, and £2,350,000 on the loan account. During April we require £2,700,000 on revenue, £1,500,000 general, and £800,000 public debt and provinces £400,000. During May we shall require a little less—£2,350,000, made up of £1,450,000 general votes, £400,000 public debt, and £500,000. In June the figures are the same as April. Hon. members will see that the amount asked for is slightly in excess of one-quarter of the estimates of expenditure. But the drawings during the first quarter of the year are generally heavier than afterwards, because we have to provide for interest and other payments in excess of the quarterly appropriation. The Provincial Administrations especially make larger demands on the Treasury during the first quarter of the year. The Act provides that as soon as the main Appropriation Act is passed the Bill will automatically lapse and cease to have any effect. It contains the usual provision that expenditure can only be incurred upon services which are provided for in the current financial year, or for which there is statutory authority, so that Parliament is not committing itself to any expenditure on new services. The amount provided for in this Bill in regard to the Loan Account is approximately £2,300,000, which is at the rate of £780,000 per month, of which the railways will require £450.000, and the balance will be required by the Land Bank, public works, telegraphs and telephones, irrigation, forestry, etc.

I do not want to offer any criticism on the financial position at the present stage, because I presume we shall have an opportunity of doing that in a comparatively short time, but I do want to refer to two important matters. The first is the giving out of these claims on the alluvial diamond diggings. I presume that after the claims of the owner of the land and the discoverer are settled, the balance belongs to the State. We appear to give out these claims not on any sound principles as far as I can see, not to the most deserving people, but simply to the best runners, the best athletes in the country. I have a paper here which describes what took place during the recent rush at Grasfontein. It speaks of little gangs of sprinters going over the ground to be pegged and pointing out the localities of specially coveted spots—

Another paper says—

To my mind, a thing of that kind is a grave reflection on the Government of the day, the giving out of valuable land in this fashion.

It is your existing laws.

Why haven’t you altered it?

Will you assist us?

I will. I should think everybody would be glad to assist who has the interests of the country at heart. It savours more of the Middle Ages than the 20th century. It is more of a gamble than anything else. Thousands of people are attracted there all over South Africa.

Why didn’t you put the Bill through?

I was never Minister in charge of the Mines Department.

Your Government began it, but they had not the courage to put it through.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Why hasn’t my hon. friend taken this thing in hand long since? It is a disgrace to South Africa that such a state of things should exist. Here we are told that 20,000 licences were issued. The number of runners who lined up in the rush is estimated at 25,000. It is said that there were probably 50,000 people at Grasfontein at that day. Another point I wish to bring up is that in any plan of allocation the interests of the State should be properly taken care of. We have before us the example of the Premier Mine, in which the State gets 60 per cent. In other cases, as far as I can see, to-day we have diamonds and gold and the baser metals, like copper and tin, where we get a share of the output, and I think it is quite right that the State should get a share. Last year, out of diamonds we got as our share as proprietors or partners no less a sum than £479,000. That is irrespective of what we get from the taxation of diamonds, etc. We got £1,845,000. We got out of copper £5,000, and out of tin £6,690. In any further arrangement that may be made for giving out these claims I will urge upon the Government that something should be done, and can be done, by which some better method of allocation can be devised. I would urge very strongly that the interest of the State should be taken care of. I want now to refer to the control of the output of diamonds.

Why do you raise that question at this stage?

Because it is the best opportunity, and I have a perfect right as a member of Parliament to raise it.

Certainly you have the right.

I am trying to assist my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. If I am not within my rights, the Speaker will call me up in double quick time.

I do not dispute your right. It may be right, but it may not be advisable.

My hon. friend knows that this diamond business is purely concerned with an article of luxury, and experience shows that whenever the production exceeds the consumption, down comes a slump. I remember well the last slump in diamonds in 1907, when there was a financial crisis in New York, and the serious effect that it had on the finances of the Cape Colony in that year and the revenue of the Railway Department. We do not want to have a similar position to that. If you have a slump in diamonds, not merely does it affect the producers, but it also affects the dealers both in Amsterdam and in this country, and it means also a big loss of revenue. Let me remind my hon. friend what he gets in taxation from diamonds—from income tax he gets £305,000 and from the export duty £874,000— over a million. That is more than my hon. friend would like to lose. From the point of view of the trade and in the interests of the protection of people who have capital invested in the trade, and the revenue of the State, I think steps should be taken to set up some control. This principle of control has been admitted in South Africa since 1887, and the large mines to-day put out only a certain allotment of diamonds. The only people who are outside are the alluvial diamond diggers. Unless something is done, I do not see how you are going to avoid a tremendous over-output of diamonds. I am informed that at Grasfontein there are four claims where you go down into a quarry, and, as far as they can see this ground, which is extremely rich, runs up to Mafeking. Of course that has not been proved yet. I urge the Government at the earliest possible moment to take steps to bring this under control. Otherwise the consequences may be very serious. I have a very lively recollection of the trouble in the Cape Colony, as it was then, during the slump of 1907. It affected not only the general revenue of the country, but the Railway revenue. We do not want a repetition of this, and the sooner the Government take it in hand the better for the sake of the country.

I am delighted at last to have such unexpected support in regard to the diamond question from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). If there has been difficulty in getting further revenue from diamond and minerals generally, it is owing to the laxity on the part of the previous Government and its predecessors. The hon. member is perfectly right in regard to the necessity of limitation of diamond output. But let me remind him that taxation of 10 per cent. on export was not got by him or his colleagues, but by those who have been pressing this tax, for the sake of local diamond cutting, for 25 or 30 years. It started with a 2½ per cent. for registration, and we ultimately got it up to 10 per cent. taxation. Let me tell my hon. friend, what perhaps he does not know, that while we are getting £880,000 a year, the Americans are taking in their wisdom 50 per cent. more in taxation on our diamonds than we ourselves. Last year the American Government drew £1,250.000. If the Minister for Finance would listen to common sense he could have another million a year, happily paid by America and not by our people at all, because it is the ultimate consumer who pays for taxation and all costs of production, particularly so in diamonds. It is the consumer who pays the Basuto who delves in the mine and he also pays financiers their profits. In itself it would tend to limit production if taxation was 20 per cent. instead of 10 per cent.; but more than that, diamond cutting would come to this country and we could have people earning here what is now going to Amsterdam. Antwerp and Paris. In spite of the promises of three Ministers at Kimberley that within a short time a diamond cutting industry would be established, this Government is as far off such a consummation as ever, and I am very glad the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) now sees what can be done in increasing national revenue from the country’s mineral assets. We are rapidly coming, fortunately, to a position in which the whole question must be dealt with effectually. Production of alluvial diamonds must come to a satisfactory settlement. Diggers have increased the proportion of alluvial diamonds from 10 per cent. up to 30 per cent. of the whole output, and of better quality than the mines. With all the new areas which are being prospected and thrown open to diggers the prospects are that we shall have a much bigger production of alluvial diamonds than ever. And why not? If the Government is in earnest in regard to the white labour policy, let it recognise that the alluvial fields are giving employment to five or six times the number of whites that the mines employ. When we consider alluvial output, remember the money is retained in South Africa by the diggers, and their profits are circulated here also; whereas in the case of diamond mines profits and dividends go overseas, and we have the least possible expenditure in this country. I beg the Government to look into the whole question very seriously. The deplorable conditions of the diggings are apparent to anybody who has visited them. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) spoke as if the industry had started last week, but it has been going on for fifty years, and there is no reason why it should not have been put on a proper basis within any year of that long period. But no Government has taken any live interest in alluvial diggings, where white men, women and children are all mixed up with natives. The children have lived uneducated. We should develop the diggings. Governments have gone on shifting responsibility as long as possible, and let it drag on. Mr. Solly Joel and his friends have now got busy, and threaten that there will be a tremendous fall in the diamond market, and then the revenue will drop. The Government is not sufficiently alive to the fact that these threats have to be severely discounted. America, rolling in riches, is going to keep on taking diamonds to the extent of ten millions a year, whether consumers pay the present duty or double the amount. Our people do not realize that Americans are paying that duty, relieving us of taxation to that extent. I am delighted that at last the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is beginning dimly to see what we have been losing in the past with regard to diamonds. The 10 per cent. duty is due entirely to the efforts of those who want diamond cutting in this country. If we develop the mineral riches of the country, we assist the population to achieve a greater amount of independence and of wealth. The big financial interests overseas are not, and can never be, the interests of the alluvial diggers or of this country, and this fact is now recognised by those who believe in—

not as a mere slogan, but in actuality.

I do not wish to talk about financial matters, but I cannot vote for the Appropriation (Part) Bill before I have said a few words to the Minister of Mines. I cannot understand what the reason is why he has not yet laid the new Diamond Bill on the Table. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has just made mention of the terrible rush at Grasfontein, and we see much in the newspapers about it; and I can speak from experience, because I had the privilege of seeing a rush and to go to one of the richest alluvial diggings in the country.

Did you make money there?

Yes. I am glad to say so, and that I assisted in developing diggings. There is often grumbling amongst hon. members opposite that Louw Geldenhuys was also working there, but I can assure the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) that I saw my contract through. I am not ashamed of the business which I am doing there. To tell the truth, I did not think much of the alluvial diggings in the past; but when I got there and saw what the yield was I changed my view. The Government has had good luck in such discoveries being made in South Africa, and I am surprised that it remains so quiet, and that the Minister of Mines and Industries, who understands mining matters, allows the best opportunities to slip to keep the wealth in the hands of the poor people and the State. I do not know whether the Minister has taken the trouble of visiting the Lichtenburg diggings.

I was there.

I am glad the Minister went there, but then he is still more to be blamed in not immediately seeing that better arrangements ought to be made. There are thousands of people there who were unemployed, but whom Providence has given an opportunity of earning their living. I do not want to attack the Minister too much, because I admit that the sub-division of the farms was legal. What I, however, protest against is that the Minister, although this House has been sitting more than a month, has not yet introduced the Bill. It is necessary that the Minister should submit the Bill to the House immediately, so that the farms shall not be sub-divided one after the other. We know that last year there was a Bill before the House which laid down the principle that owners’ claims should be in proportion to the size of the ground. I regard that as quite a good principle, but I do not wish to anticipate the Bill, and therefore will not discuss the matter further. What I, and everybody, feel is that it is inexplicable that the Minister delays so long about the matter. Is it that he is afraid of the stories that too many diamonds will be produced, and that that will cause the market to collapse? I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is needlessly afraid of that. There are indeed rich places, but of the thousands who took part in the Grasfontein rush many will be disappointed, because the rich spots have been excluded. We have seen that the big diamond people—De Beers, etc.—are fairly frightened. They come to see things there and go to the Government every day. The fear is that too many diamonds will be found there. I hope the Minister will not allow himself to be frightened.

Frightened of what?

Of the stories that too many diamonds will be put on the market. Let the people who want to dig have an opportunity of doing so and trying to become independent. We must not always look at the diamond diggings from the dark side. There are thousands who find a living there, and who have found their salvation there, but the Minister must not delay legislation any longer, otherwise all the farms will more and more be cut into small portions and the people have no chance of obtaining claims. I have always, since the old Republican days, stood up for the rights of landowners, but if the spirit of the law is being evaded the Government ought to intervene. The Minister ought, as soon as possible, to enable everyone to know where he stands under the law. It is stated that large syndicates are working there. I have been about the diggings, and can honestly say that as regards the natives employed there, it is a great help to them. What would have become of them during the drought if this assistance had not been available? The people have had an opportunity of working there, and hundreds and thousands are employed there, not only in digging diamonds, but also in carting water, etc. The farmers bring them produce to the market there, and these great discoveries are a blessing to South Africa. The Minister is, however, delaying too long. I have met farmers and other diggers on the diamond fields, and I can assure the House that I never heard anybody say that the owners should give up his ground, but many of them think that the Government tolerates too much that the best spots are cut out, so that good claims are lost to them. With regard to the rush of the 25,000to 27,000 people, I want to say that I agree with the Minister that it is unsatisfactory. Some other scheme must be found in some way or other. What about the crippled people, who can only look on? There are some who have been fortunate enough to get hold of a good claim, but it is a wrong method. We know that in the Republican time the same difficulty occurred with reference to the gold law. Many of the people ploughed up the ground to get a mynpacht, and the Government had to intervene and stop it. Why does not the Government interfere with regard to the diamonds? The position as to licences, native passes, etc., is very unsatisfactory, and the Government is losing much. People often have to wait hours to get a prospector’s licence. It is not the fault of the officials, but the result of the large influx of people. I think the Minister should from the first have taken the best opportunity of introducing the Bill, and I hope he is not too frightened of too many diamonds being found. I see that one of the biggest diamond kings (Mr. Solly Joel) in an interview also said that he was not much frightened of it. He said that the conditions at Lichtenburg reminded him of the picture of the Transvaal in the early days after the discovery of gold. He said that thousands of people there only made £1 a week or a month. I admit that there are people who make nothing, but there are many who, although they do not make a fortune, get out of their difficulties. The drought has tried the country, and this is a deliverance. I understand that a circular has been sent to Government officials prohibiting them from working on the diggings any more. I hope this is not so, because I think that if such persons want to go there during their holidays to dig, they should not be prevented. Let them try their luck, and earn something for themselves and their families. Presently the farmers also will be prohibited from digging there. We hear of people who want to stop farmers from digging. Why should we stop them? Many of the farmers in that way get out of difficulties. Their farming goes on, and it is a real deliverance for them. I hope that the rumour is not true. I see that the Minister said that he would find some way of handicapping the big men and the syndicates a little. If there are any of them who want to exploit the diggings, stop them; but I do not hope the Minister will allow himself to be frightened by all the stories which are circulating. I see the Administrator of South-West Africa has also been giving advice, and thinks that so many diamonds are being found that the whole of South-West Africa and De Beers will go to the dogs. I do not believe a word of it. Very many people find a living there, and the Government must assist them. The law must, however, step in to prevent an undesirable state of affairs developing. I do not always agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), but I think he has mentioned things tonight which deserve consideration. The rush that took place two weeks ago, and was a failure, showed that the diggers are nevertheless satisfied, and it cannot be alleged that, as a class, they are agitators. There were a few agitators, but I am glad they were put in their place.

They were Saps.

I do not believe it. I do not know whether the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) does not know them well, but they wanted to creep in there to instigate the diggers. The diggers, however, gave them a thrashing. The Minister was out of the country for a short time, but I hope he will treat the diggers as well as he can. Very little has been done for them in the past. There was not even a post office for the despatch of letters and telegrams, but yet the people were content. The reason is that they have to work hard and do their best to get the diamonds out as quickly as possible. It is a pleasant work if the digger has good luck; but, on the other hand, I hope the Minister will not keep us waiting long, but will introduce the Bill as soon as possible. Then everyone will know where he stands.

I do not dispute the right of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to bring up the matter of the alluvial diggings, because he is undoubtedly entitled to do so. The question, however, is whether it is always proper to exercise a right. I wish to say shortly on the debate that I do not want to go into it to-night. In the speech from the Throne, the Governor-General mentioned the Bill which would be put through this session, and I am glad to learn, from the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) that they are anxious to support the Government in passing the Bill.

Yes.

I only just wish to say the only reason why the Bill has not been laid on the Table is because it is a frightfully complicated and difficult matter. It contains a large number of clauses and up to practically last week there were still a few complications which no one could foresee. It is just as well that the Bill which was printed last year was not passed, because it would in a great measure have been a waste of time. There were such sudden and important developments that it is just as well that the matter has hung on up to the present, so that we can deal with the fresh developments. With regard to the sub division of farms, I want to say that it was an accomplished fact before this session commenced. In any event the Government appreciates the seriousness of the position, and I hope to lay the Bill on the Table as soon as possible.