I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I move—

I consider it an honour to introduce this motion. The Kalahari problem is a question which is not being discussed for the first time in this House. Two years ago the Government undertook to make a survey. There was a donation of £1,000 from somebody available, and the Government then instructed a commission to make a survey of the Zambesi area instead of the whole Kalahari. The report of the commission was published, but before I go into it, I should just like to remind hon. members what the views of Professor Schwartz were, and which are more and more being strongly held and supported by others. The view of Professor Schwartz is based on the fact that South Africa is bounded on the west and the east by two mountain ranges, and that in between the two ranges there is an area which suffers from a shortage of water to-day. Further, that once upon a time there existed a large inland sea or lake which was bounded approximately as follows: On the north by where the Caprivi strip comes into South-West Africa, and on the south by Rhodesia and the north of Bechuanaland. That view is not doubted. It would, therefore, comprise an area where in the south the large Ngami flats and the Makarikari area were included. That part has run dry in the course of time, or is still going dry. It is not a point of much importance in this debate why, from a geological point of view, that takes place. On the one hand the view exists that as the result of movements the flood water disappeared under the sand, while, on the other hand, there is the view that, as a result of the breaking up or up-raising of the rocky crust of the earth, the water has been sent in another direction, with the result that to-day less water stops on the ground than formerly. However this may be. Professor Schwartz’s theory, that there once was such an area which was under water, and has now practically run dry, and the attempt suggested by him to reinstate things where they have gone wrong, i.e., to dam up the river and the water which runs to the west to the sea, and to the east to the Indian Ocean must be prevented from flowing there, and must be kept in the country. The great rivers which have to carry the water to the lakes rise in Angola. The Chobe River, e.g., comes from mountains which are 3,800 feet above sea level, and that part has the largest rainfall in South Africa. Two rivers rise there, the Kunene, which takes the water to the Atlantic Ocean, and the Zambezi, which carries it eastward to the Indian Ocean, the Chobe River and the Okavango River, which runs in the middle, and forms the lakes and vleis in the central area. The rivers receive an enormous quantity of water which they carry off. Professor Schwartz’s proposal is to prevent the water running away, and he proposes to build a dam at Gnoma and to catch up the water of the Chobe River, so that it shall not run into the Zambezi. Because the water in all probability will push round the barrage in a northerly direction and come into the Zambezi, it is proposed that it will not be built for its full width of stone and cement, but that a fairly long embankment shall be erected, which will prevent the water flowing in a northerly direction and again getting into the Zambezi. The result of these two barrages—one in South-West across the Kunene, and the other across the Chobe—is that the water running to the sea in the Kunene, and that running in the Chobe to the Zambezi and later to the sea, will thus be conserved on the ground. Now the commission that was appointed to do the survey, more particularly in the Zambezi area has criticized Professor Schwartz’s idea. It is not necessary now to go into details, but we find that Major Leipoldt, whose name was previously mentioned in the House as an opponent of the scheme, after a residence of about three years in those parts, was convinced that Professor Schwartz’s scheme was impracticable. He proposes that at the junction of the Katombora with the Zambezi, an embankment should be built to stop the flood water. Sufficient water will he left in the Zambezi to allow the Victoria Falls to remain one of the wonders of the world, and to make sufficient provision for the supply of electrical power, a thing which has to be borne in mind because of a concession granted to a company. The proposal of the commission is actually a contrary scheme to that of Professor Schwartz. The latter proposes to dam up the water of the Chobe river at Gnoma, and to fill up the Makabe and Gnomi and the Makarikari flats with water, the water will then be carried through the proposed Makarikari lake to the south. The commission proposes to build the barrage in the Zambezi at Katambora, 50 foot in height. They want to do the same thing that Professor Schwartz suggests at Gnoma. The commission think that the Gnoma scheme is not quite practicable, because the ground is too brittle there, and the water cannot be banked up, but they adopt the view of Professor Schwartz to send the water over the same area as is intended by Professor Schwartz to the Makarikari lake, and then eventually to lead it to the Orange River. Thus from an engineering point of view the scheme is to lead the water which conies to the central Kalahari into the Makarikari lake, and then to allow it to run off along the central Kalahari River, through the Molopo to the Orange River. We know that in 1914 the water came down to 14 miles above the Orange River, but was there stopped by a sand bank blown across the course of the river, with the result that the water then ran 30 miles westward and disappeared. But the fact is that there is a dry river bed which was formerly a river from the Makarikari lake to the Orange River. Objections are, however, made to the scheme. The idea latent in the scheme is that if the water is conserved and prevented from uselessly running to the sea, there will, in the first place, of course, be more water. Let me say in this connection that I am not primarily thinking of irrigation works. In my opinion the commission is in this respect wandering from the point. They are chiefly thinking about irrigation works. That is not the main idea. The idea, in the first place, is to get more water, and the question of irrigation works can be considered later. To-day the water runs to the sea, and the object is to keep more water on the land. Between the two mountain ranges I mention, there is a very large mass of air. It does not remain still, but, to a certain extent, is in motion. Winds from the east bring damp air from the Indian Ocean, from the west the winds blow over the Richtersveld in the saucer between the mountain ranges. The air which blows over Africa is subject to a fair amount of movement, and if the water, which comes and drops as rain, is banked up, there will in time be more water in the saucer than there is to-day, or has been in the near past. Rain, as we know, usually comes in two ways. In the first place, because columns of air comes into contact with other columns, and there is sufficient moisture in the air to saturate the columns. Such air then comes into contact with other which is colder, the temperature of the air drops, and the clouds come down in rain. The second way is that clouds are driven against mountain ranges, and the area with the largest rainfall is the Angola range. Major Leipoldt told me that at the time he was there (about three years ago) he measured the rainfall as far as possible, and, according to him, the rainfall to the east of the poorts, i.e., to the east of the lower mountain peaks, is about 50 inches per annum, and at the point where the mountain peaks are highest, it is about 80 inches. That is a tremendously great rainfall. We are concerned there with a tropical area, and we know that the rainfall is particularly great in the summer months, and the fact that no less than five large rivers rise in the mountain range proves the enormous rainfall that there is. The commission and others have attacked Professor Schwartz’s view, because they say that there are no proofs of it. We, however, see the big rainfall there, and that the large rivers rise there. If therefore—this is our view—the rain falls there, and we catch up the rivers which come down to the lakes where a large portion becomes evaporated and is driven back by the winds to the mountains to fall down again in rain, the evaporation and quantity of water must, in time, increase. We keep the dampness which is driven by the winds into the interior and it evaporates from the lakes instead of from the sea Let me add to this that the evaporation of the water is about 70 to 90 inches per annum, but Professor Schwartz points out that most of the water plants, the Palmiet, “Vluitjes” reed and other reeds that grow in the water there, are of such a kind that they do not allow so much water to run off as some of our plants; as, e.g., the willow tree. The plants, therefore, conserve the water, and if the surface of the lakes and vleis becomes three times as large, it does not follow that the evaporation will be three times as large, because the plants protect the water, and prevent so much evaporation. The idea that we should keep the water there is, therefore, not only to have more water on the ground, but to have more in the air. The more water there is in the air, the less will the water on the ground evaporate. If the air is saturated at a certain temperature then the evaporation from the pans and dams will be less, and we shall keep these large quantities of water. Moreover, the country there lies high, and if the water is kept there it can flow along the ground down to the Orange River and underground to the river to the south of it. All the parts of the country there will, therefore, have an opportunity of obtaining fountains. I have already mentioned something about wind contrivances. When the evaporation of the water takes place, it is useless if the wind blows in an unfavourable direction. According to information supplied me by Major Leipoldt, and according to articles he wrote four years ago in “Ons Vaderland,” the wind in those parts usually blows from the east and south-east, and possibly also north-east. Anyone who is acquainted with the Karoo and the neighbourhood of Kimberley, knows that when it rains there it usually comes from the north-east or the north-west, the same direction that the rain in the areas under discussion comes from. What is most strange is that if the winds are easterly or north-easterly, they last a few days, and then the rain does not come from the north-east, but from the north-west or west, i.e., the winds from the Indian Ocean go north-west to Angola, but the winds which bring rain come from the north-west laden with mist from the Indian Ocean. It has already been noticed that clouds travel practically in the opposite direction to the low wind. Where the low wind and the high wind meet each other in the air, then the rain comes down. It falls, however, to the west, instead of to the east. If the Makarikari lake is dammed up, then the rain will come from the north-west, and wet the parts that we want to be wet. The area which will be put under water there is, of course, fairly large, and it will be gathered that it will take a long time to get it under water. The commission, e.g., think that the Mabako will be filled in nine years if the flood water from the Zambezi is turned into it. To fill the Ngami and Makarikari lakes will thus take some years, but that does not discount the fact that it is worth while doing it. What has already occurred in the Cape Province? We have already made a commencement in the Cape valley on two things which have made South Africa dry. The cattle have trod little paths; spades have opened the vleis. The jackal has also contributed his part. The last named is a very important factor in the drying up of South Africa, because the jackal has compelled the farmers to drive their cattle to the water and kraals, and the little paths which have been worn down have become furrows to carry the water to the rivers and to the sea. Our farmers have already commenced trekking into those parts, and they are, therefore, doing the same things they did here. We have another great enemy as well, viz., fire, which is used to burn down the palmiet in the vleis, so that the cattle can get to the water, and to clear ground for the planting of mealies. The fire has thus assisted in drying up the country, and we are to-day still doing the same thing. Farming is now commencing in the Kalahari, and the same thing is done there as in the Cape, the Free State, the Transvaal and Bechuanaland. My motion aims at putting an end to this drying up. Instead of the proposal of the commission to look for irrigation areas, we must make a commencement with getting water there, so that the large quantity of water can influence the climate, strengthen the fountains and increase the rainfall. Then we shall be able to solve the drought problem in South Africa. One can hardly open any paper without seeing complaints about droughts, and they are becoming worse and worse. Our experts tell us that the rainfall is the same as before, but I do not believe that. The rainfall has appreciably diminished, if it is taken over the whole of South Africa. The rainfall may be the same at certain places, but if it were possible to go back 200 or 300 years, then it would be clear that the rainfall to-day is less. In my opinion our first step should be to try to get water. The commission says that if a barrage is built in the Zambezi at the junction with the Katambora, then it should be 50 feet high, and then the necessary amount of water will remain to secure the beauty of the Falls and power for the electricity scheme. Then all the flood water will be held back, and will be available to irrigate the areas of the Mababe, the Ngami and the Makarikari lakes. They, therefore, practically admit that Professor Schwartz’s scheme is practicable, although they differ, to about 40 or 50 miles from his proposal to put it on the Chobe river near the Zambezi. They admit the possibility of damming up the water and retaining it in the Kalahari. I say that when once we have the water and fill the Makarikari lake, so that it can work down to the Orange River, then we can wait until the water soaks through there, before we take it out for irrigation purposes. It will be better to do that than to start small irrigation works. We must wait until it is proved that there is an improvement in the climate and rainfall, and that the fountains are stronger. Then we shall be able to commence irrigation works, and then things will not be as they are to-day, because the rainfall will be the salvation of the irrigation works.

How much will the survey cost?

I am just coming to that. I asked the Government to consider making a further survey of the northern part of the Kalahari. The reason is that we ought to know how large the area is that feeds the rivers. Professor Schwartz states that there is a junction from the Okavango above Amdara (a police station to the north-west of Lake Ngami) by means of a side sluit or vlei which runs into the Chobe, and that if this is closed up then more water will run out into the Okavango. This is, however, a minor matter. It will be in the country’s interest if the Government had a survey made of the surface area, the rainfall and the winds. The commission appointed by the Government two years ago were occupied nine months or a year, and over and above £1,000, which was presented anonymously, it cost the country, according to the Auditor-General’s report, £4,200. On a former occasion I suggested the use of motors and aeroplanes, and they were used by the commission with good results and at small cost. Important work was done, and it only cost a little more than £5,000. If the rest of the survey takes two years, then the cost will be about £10.000. It is little to ask for such important research work. The data are important, because the commission went to see how far the scheme of Professor Schwartz was possible. What happened, however? The members of the commission suggest a scheme of three large irrigation works which are larger than those we already have in the Union. The £4.000 spent by the State was, in my opinion, well spent. I admit that all the ground does not belong to us, because parts come into Rhodesia, South-West Africa and Bechuanaland. That, however, makes no difference. The commission submitted a report of great value whether we agree with it or differ on minor points. The great question is that the report states that the Katambora barrage must be built for irrigation purposes. If we, however, go further, then we shall put all the irrigable areas under water, and make a sea of them, and thus indirectly increase the water on South African soil. My motion will not cost a tremendously great deal, and it is worth while to make further enquiry, because the commission has already proved that the matter is important. Even if the whole area is not in our jurisdiction, we still are the premier Government in South Africa, and as the most important one, we should regulate the matter to get to a certainty about the damming up of the water.

What will the scheme cost?

Major Leipoldt suggested that the barrage should be built, and he says that it must be 80 feet high. The commission says that it can be 50 feet high. According to Major Leipoldt, the cost of a wall 80 feet high will be £4,000,000. while the commission estimate the cost of one 50 feet high at about £2,000,000. If, however, we go in for large irrigation works, then the expense of the great distribution canals, and the cultivation of the ground, will not be included in the latter figure. What is asked by my motion is not that a barrage shall be built, but that the matter shall be further investigated. It opens up such a magnificent prospect to South Africa for the future, and it will be to our discredit if we do not go on with it. The question of water for the ground is world wide, and to us in South Africa, it is of the very greatest importance. Hon. members must not take it amiss of me that I am speaking at length, though I know that they are anxious to get to the motions for railway lines. They will, however, admit that they will have a much better chance of building railway lines profitably if the water supply were better. I can most unhesitatingly recommend that a commission should be sent to make further surveys. Major Leipoldt told me that he is quite in agreement with the conclusions of Professor Schwartz, but that, as a scientific man, he could not venture at the moment upon an opinion as to influencing the climate and rainfall, and the directions of the wind.

Is it then doubtful whether we shall get more rain?

The conclusion is obvious. The largest rainfall is in Angola. The winds are north westerly, and blow towards Angola, and as soon as they meet the mountains the rains fall, and then the water comes back in the rivers. All that has to be done is to bank it up lower down, so that the water does not go to the sea. If then further water from beyond the mountains is obtained by winds on the west or east side, then the water in that area will always become greater. It cannot become less. To-day it is becoming less and less until the whole country is dried up. We have the same process in Nyasaland and Central Africa where the lakes are getting lower. Pretoria is situated on a spot where a lake once existed and which disappeared in consequence of an earth tremor, so that that part became dry. This is happening right and left in South Africa, and also on a large scale in the parts where there is still a heavy rainfall. We must make enquiries and take steps to prevent those parts from drying up as in the Cape Province. I regard it as our holy duty to go further into this matter.

I do not think it is necessary to spend much time in seconding this motion, as one cannot imagine that there will be any serious objection to it on the part of the Government, or on the part of any individual, and furthermore, the mover of the motion has put the case so well and given such full information that it is difficult to add anything of value to the representations which he has made. As the House knows, this scheme originated chiefly in the mind of Professor Schwarz. He is a scientist of South African renown, who has devoted at least ten years of his life chiefly to the consideration of this very important subject. He knows that there is no subject really of greater importance to South Africa than the climatic considerations involved in this scheme. He has pointed out upon more than one occasion that this country is getting drier and drier every year. In an interview not long ago, he showed that the rainfall from 1873 to 1899 averaged 24 inches, but the average from 1900 onwards for a period of 21 years was only 21 inches, and the corollary follows that, as the rainfall decreases, more land must go out of production. So if this diminution of rainfall goes on, many areas which are devoted to the growing of mealies will not be able to grow that crop in future. Everyone in this House is aware that one of the greatest curses of South Africa is the periodical droughts. These go on from year to year. I do not think there has ever been a session of this House when the drought question has not come up in some form or other, and it is obvious that the droughts are increasing in number and in intensity, and, therefore, it is necessary that we should investigate into the causes of these droughts, and that is the first step towards providing a remedy, if it is possible to provide a remedy. Professor Schwarz says that the position is this, that South Africa is a basin essentially, with high hills on the outskirts, through which most of the water that falls in the interior escapes through rifts or chasms in the mountain sides to the sea, and, therefore, is lost. These rivers escape with great rapidity, so that the benefit they are capable of affording to the country is reduced to a minimum, and the resultant benefit is very small indeed. So he proposes in the main portion of his scheme to prevent, at all events, some of these rivers from escaping so rapidly as they do, and he bases his argument on what he considers to be the fact that many of these rivers that now flow to the sea formerly flowed into the interior. There are notably the Cunene and the Zambesi, and the immense volume of water carried away by these rivers he thinks might be diverted at a comparatively small expense into the interior. We know very little about it. Very few of us have any personal acquaintance with the Kalahari or with the other regions covered by the scheme. At all events, it would seem that if South Africa is not to gradually become desert land, we will have to take stock of the situation, and if possible do something to prevent these dangers arising. It is a matter of doubt or dispute whether the rainfall on the average is less or not. It is common knowledge that the country is drier, and it is certainly a fact that the water that does fall in the form of rain is going away much more quickly from the areas which might benefit than formerly. There is evidence to show that many portions of this country which are now bereft of game were thickly stocked at one time. They were eliminated because the conditions necessary to their existence became absent through prolonged droughts or through the failure of the country to supply the necessary vegetation for their subsistence. Another point that Professor Schwarz is very strong on is that if this scheme can be carried out, it will effect such atmospheric changes that we can expect from that cause alone a considerable increase in our rainfall. The science of meteorology is perhaps the least advanced of any of the sciences. The time has not yet come when any of us can pay very serious attention to forecasts of the rainfall. We do not know as much about the occurrence of rain as we do about some of the other great natural phenomena. There are some points on which meteorologists are decided. One is that not only must there be the necessary condition of the clouds, but there must be some corresponding condition on the ground which will induce the rainfall, instead of the clouds passing over the ground, as so often happens in South Africa. He thinks that an atmospheric condition can be brought about that would be more favourable to this. We can only at the moment accept this as his strong and definite opinion without committing ourselves to it. However, he seems, as the result of his ten years’ investigation, to have convinced himself and, I believe, many others. When this reconnaisance survey made its report, although on many conclusions they were unable to agree with Professor Schwarz, even they admit that the lack of decisive data did not enable them to come to full and definite conclusions. The object of this motion is to enable us to get these decisive conclusions. They say that further investigation is required. They admit that a very large area of ground can be put under water at a very moderate cost. In brief, their conclusion is that it is absolutely necessary that further investigation should be made. I do not think we are asking the Government to commit themselves to very much in accepting this motion. The details would be left entirely in their hands, and I am sure that such a body as they appoint to investigate will at all events give good value for any money they may cost in the report they will submit. There is another matter that we know is one of the curses of South Africa, and that is the enormous evaporation. It amounts on an average to 90 inches a year. The rainfall rarely exceeds 30 inches, and most of it lies between 15 inches and 30 inches. When you compare that with England, with a rainfall of 30 inches and an evaporation of only 15 inches, it will be seen that we have a great deal to struggle against in the conservation of the moisture that falls to our share. It is obvious that if some of these large rivers are turned into the interior, it will enable the evaporation in perhaps a large portion of South Africa to be checked considerably. The motion is so modest that I do not think it is necessary to spend much time in urging its acceptance on the Government, and I hope the Minister will say he feels able to accept the motion and to give effect to it.

The House will remember that I introduced a motion in 1920 to inquire into Professor Schwarz’s scheme. His book had then just appeared, and made a great sensation in circles interested in irrigation, and the facts then stated by Professor Schwarz and his conclusions appeared to be so simple and logical and easy to be carried out, that people were much impressed by them. Subsequently it appeared that the thing was not so easy as at first represented. The professor spoke of dams made of branches of trees and sand which would have to be taken away to make the river resume the course which it had previously followed. Subsequent inquiry showed—and writers acquainted with the area also pointed it out—that it was impossible. In the meantime, a survey has been made by a commission, and it appears from the report that the scheme, if it is practicable, will not be so cheap as at first thought. As the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) said, the cost is estimated at between £2.000.000 and £4,000,000. But whether this matter is practicable or not, one thing is certain, viz., that in former centuries there was a tremendously large rainfall in the interior. I have the honour of representing a constituency which runs a long way along the Molopo river, past the place of its junction with the Nosob river. The people there are very much intrigued with Professor Schwarz’s scheme. They cannot estimate how far the Zambesi is from them; they do not appreciate that it is more than 1,000 miles away, but they know where the Nosob river comes from, and think that the water may come from there to the south. I do not say that any scheme which can be recommended or from which we may draw benefit must necessarily be an irrigation scheme. I only know the lower portion of the Kalahari, and know that the sand dunes there have been blown there, and that there can be no question of irrigation works. The places are possibly not what they were years ago when the water came through the Kalahari, yet it is the water which to-day still feeds the subterranean water which we have to use and which, for instance, flows into the Kuruman river, and constitutes the strong springs in South-West Africa, which spout about 10 ft. high out of bore-holes, and thousands of springs which are elsewhere fed by the water. The more bore-holes we make in the south-west and north-west, and the more water we obtain, the more we shall see the rainfall decrease and the flooding of water become less. The more water that runs away, the deeper will become the water level. There was that great river, the Molopo. It is peculiar to notice that centuries ago it was a large river with tremendous banks, a river quite as large as the Orange river is to-day. The rainfall must in those days have been quite different to what it is now. About 30 years ago the river was deep, but it gradually got smaller, and eventually disappeared in the sand. The water that sometimes still comes down now feeds that subterranean water. I want, however, to heartily support the motion for a further survey, because we are in uncertainty. Some people regard the scheme as ridiculous, others as practicable, some say it will cost a great deal, and others that it will not cost so much. I think that we ought to inquire a little more into it to remove the uncertainty, so that we shall know whether in the future there will be an opportunity, and whether it will be worth while to think about the scheme. Our Government and the neighbouring governments will then have the data and can see whether the water supply can be improved. Therefore, I should be very glad if the Government will accept the motion and put an end to the doubt by a further survey.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House, and will therefore be short. Professor Schwarz’s scheme is not being discussed here for the first time. In 1920 a similar motion was introduced, and the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who was then Prime Minister, said in the Senate that it could not be accepted. He differed greatly from the hon. member who has introduced the motion to-day. The hon. member for Standerton in 1920 said in the Senate that the water system was such a great problem that we could not alter the history of it, that the rainfall depended on the wind, and that earth tremors could not alter it. The hon. member further said that the fact that various river beds and canals had become marshy had caused the difficulty. He then further pointed out the great cost of such a scheme. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) came here to-day and said that if certain things were done, certain other things would be possible, and the rainfall, e.g., would increase. That is one of Professor Schwarz’s chief points. He says that if the rivers are conserved in the pans, the Ngami lake and the Makarikari lake, the rainfall in the country will probably increase. The rivers which must be stopped in their course to the sea are the Kunene, which rises in Portuguese territory and flows into the Atlantic ocean, and the Okavango, which also rises in Portuguese territory, and subsequently completely disappears in lakes and vleis in Ovamboland, and the third the Pondo river, which also rises in Portuguese territory, and subsequently runs into the Zambesi. The scheme is to make canals, and in that way to improve the water supply, and to form lakes. But the statement that the rainfall will increase is vague, and founded on nothing. Various geologists differ from Professor Schwarz on this point, and say that he should prove the statement that if the scheme is executed the rainfall will increase. I have here a book by a certain Brooks, a weather expert, and he says, in connection with Professor Schwarz’s scheme, that his statements rest on very weak ground. The book was recently written by the weather expert, and he does not agree with the professor—

In 1925, however, this House took a resolution and notified the Government of the desirability of inquiring into the scheme, because it was being said over the length and breadth of South Africa that if the scheme were to be executed, the rainfall would increase. The Government gave effect to the resolution of this House, and appointed a commission which investigated this scheme. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) said that the whole area was not unsurveyed, but the hon. leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) said in 1920 that the execution of such a scheme over such a large area was an impossible thing. And the territories in which, and for the benefit of which, the inquiry was to be made do not even lie within the Union, they are completely outside the boundaries of the Union, and the benefit would be to Bechuanaland and Rhodesia. The only area we control, and which accordingly will also be benefited, is South-West Africa. The commission was instructed by the Government to inquire into the matter. The report is in the form of a white book known to hon. members. The leader of the commission (Dr. du Toit) states that the northern portion was not enquired into, but that the two are so closely related that he considers that it is not necessary, nor of any importance, to pursue the inquiry further. As I have already said Professor Schwarz’s theory is, that if the water in the lakes can be increased, the rainfall will increase. I say again that that statement is not based on any proofs, or at any rate that no proofs have been given for it, and other geologists differ entirely in that regard from the professor. If the water in the lakes is increased there is a possibility that that may not happen, and the professor has not produced sufficient proof of his hypothesis. Then he stated that in recent years the rainfall has become much less than formerly, but, according to my information, not the least proof has been given that the rainfall was more previously. And I agree with the leader of the Opposition that the rainfall has nothing to do with the conservation of water, but that it depends on winds. From the available data, it is clear that the rainfall has not decreased. If the water were to be accumulated in the lakes in those morasses, there is a very good chance that it would soak away and not remain on the surface. The Surface of the lake would, as a result of the influence of the Zambesi, become three times as large, but it is not certain that it would increase in proportion to the evaporation. Of that there is not the least proof available. I cannot see why the Government should expend large sums of money to make an inquiry outside the Union. Hon. members will remember that last year when we were dealing with the boundary question between South West Africa and Portugal, it was suggested that the water of the Kunene which was to irrigate the Etosha pan could probably be stopped in Ovambaland, and would represent a large irrigation works. The Government has already appointed a commission to further investigate the matter, and that commission will probably commence its work in the beginning of July, to see whether by irrigation Ovambaland can be made more habitable. We cannot, however, now agree to spend large sums for an inquiry outside the Union. The hon. member for Standerton said in 1920 that it was impracticable to inquire into the scheme, and to carry it out, and I therefore cannot understand the shouting of the Opposition today for the making of the inquiry. In 1920 the hon. member for Standerton refused to accept a similar motion. Moreover, we feel today that it is not desirable that the money of the taxpayers of the Union should be spent in the direction proposed by the hon. member for Paarl. Consequently, the Government cannot accept the motion.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) on his splendid introductory speech, but I want to say that he might make an impression like a certain rain-maker, that he might get the matter on the brain. I think that I can cordially congratulate Dr. du Toit and his staff on the inquiry that was made, but it is a pity that £4.000 of public money was spent. I want to urge that if in the future we want to spend money, we should do so on a scheme to benefit the country. If we can have the assurance that the execution of the scheme which he advocates will mollify the droughts in South Africa, then I should say we ought to commence with it to-morrow. There is however, nothing in the report to support that view. There is merely the theory of Professor Schwarz, which I think is impracticable. When we go into the commission’s report, we see that the scheme is an impossible one. Nearly every page makes the impossibility of the scheme clear. At page 35 the impossibility of taking the water to the Makarikari lake is discussed, and the size of the barrage intended to dam up the Zambesi is also mentioned, a thing which must also be regarded as impossible. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Paarl has the report in his hands. What guarantee have we that the water will stay in the lakes, or even within South Africa? On page 49, it is said that one of the chief benefits to be expected is the increase in the rainfall. This is, however, merely theory. If there is any money to spend, then I hope it will be spent on the dry rivers in South Africa. That, in any case, will benefit our country.

What about the Hatfield scheme?

I did not know the Hatfield scheme in the past.

What do you think of Mr. Hall?

I was actually afraid that he had rain-making on the brain.

You were a protagonist for Hatfield.

The hon. member is imagining, as usual. Something must be done to dam up the water of South Africa, especially in the dry regions. I wish we could undertake such schemes here as are carried out in Australia. Australia constructs canals 5.000 miles long to provide 11.000 square miles with water for cattle and household purposes and 31 villages.

You are exaggerating a bit.

I am talking of subsidiary canals. We cannot go in for this scheme on the theory of a professor and the speech of a doctor who has possibly never had a spade in his hands and knows nothing about dams. In my opinion, it is impossible, and I hope that the Government will not touch it in the future. Senator Tucker in 1920, in the Senate, proposed that something of the kind should be done, and the then Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) opposed it. If there is a penny available, let us dam up the dry rivers in the midlands.

Where is the water?

The rivers run periodically, and they are running now.

It is mostly mud, and the dams silt up in two years.

That shows how little the hon. member knows. There are dams which have existed for ten years, and where there is only a few feet of silt. We must drop this scheme, and tackle one to assist the dry areas.

If anything can be done to increase the rain in South Africa, I shall certainly vote for it. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) now brings before the House a scheme which will cost millions of pounds, and which gives us no certainty. All his arguments are based on presumption, and I hope the House will not pass the motion to enter upon a scheme which will cost millions.

My motion contemplates an expenditure of £10.000 in two years.

When the survey is completed and the scheme has to be accomplished, then it will be a matter of millions. I do not think it is necessary to go so far. I do not wish to talk like the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), who says that the dry rivers must be dammed up. We have large perennial rivers in the Union, like the Vaal and the Orange river. We know that the Rand Water Board built a barrage in the Vaal river, and what it means to Johannesburg. If there is a thing which the Government should consider, then it is the building of more barrages in the Vaal river. There is not the least doubt that five or six more barrages of the same size can be built in the Vaal river. We ought not to waste money on an impossible scheme, but to so spend it that we can be sure of the water and directly reap the fruits. When we have dammed up the water, why cannot it have the same effect as Professor Schwartz’s scheme?

I want to say that I have the greatest respect for the way in which the hon. mover has made a study of the geographical position, but there is, however, a factor, the most important of all, around which everything turns, which the hon. member has not explained at all. The mover says that the whole scheme is based on Professor Schwarz’s theory, viz., that the evaporation of the water which will be led to the Makarikari lake and other lakes will have a favourable influence on the rainfall in the Union and surrounding countries. If the hon. member takes a basin of water and sits at the fireplace in a room and allows it to evaporate, will it rain in the room?

There will be a fog.

No rain at any rate. A fortiori, that will be the case if we notice what relation there is between the scheme proposed and the wide world. The hon. member, like me, has been to Europe, and if he saw the Canary Islands, Teneriffe, Las Palmas and others, then he will have noticed that they are surrounded by the ocean. Has the hon. member, however, observed the rainfall? My memory may fail me, because I have not been able to get data about the matter, but, as far as I remember, the rainfall is 12 inches a year; less, therefore, than the rainfall in the Kalahari. Take another example; the hon. member knows the case of Lake Chad, in the Sahara, the large desert. Lake Chad is much larger than the proposed Makarikari, but it has no influence on the Sahara. Where is the certainty that the execution of the Schwarz scheme will influence the climate? I am not a learned man, but my common-sense teaches me that the whole argument of the mover is unsound. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) and other members said that something must be done. There is one thing we know to be a certain rain-maker, and that is trees. In the old days, in granting ground, the stipulation was always made that a certain number of trees were to be planted each year. The result is that the Cape is one of the most beautiful parts in the world, and probably that the rainfall is greater here than in any part of South Africa. I want to suggest to the Minister, if there is any money to spend, not to do so in accordance with the motion of the hon. member for Paarl, but to plant trees and always increase them. Then there is the remedy referred to by Maj. Leipoldt, a surveyor of much experience who has made a study of the matter. If the hon. member will read articles published in my journal three or four years ago, he will notice that Maj. Leipoldt’s opinion is that the Kalahari is not becoming larger, but smaller. He explains that in the following way. The mountains on the east stop the mist from the east, the source of our mist. In the course of centuries those mountains have become smaller, in other words the stopping capacity of the mountains is less, and therefore he expects—his theory seems very sound—that the mist in those parts of South Africa, in the course of centuries, as the mountains become smaller, will become more. I do not propose that we should wait till then, but what we can do is to ask the Government to plant forests and to go ahead more strongly with what has already been done. As far as I can see, that is the only way possible to increase the rainfall. Further barrages are, of course, necessary to prevent the water running to waste to the sea. The hon. member for Paarl made a splendid speech, and a good geographical explanation, but I am sorry that I cannot vote for his motion.

I am sorry the Minister made an unfavourable reply, and that he had to drag in some politics.

He always does so.

He cannot help himself.

I want to follow his example a little. I want to ask the question how it is that the entire Nationalist party in 1920 voted in favour of the motion, but are now opposed to it.

The inquiry has now been made.

It is a great scheme for the future. The Minister says that he cannot see the justification of spending millions, but that is not what my motion asks. What authority had the Minister to spend £4,000 on the commission?

The authority of Parliament.

Did you think, then, that the money could be spent?

We certainly tried.

The commission made a report, and the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, and other hon. members now talk of the vague ideas which Professor Schwarz had. The report of the commission, however, established everything that he stated. They do not prove that he was wrong, hut merely doubt that it will rain more. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) asked me a question as if it were the point on which everything turned. I thought that I made it clear. The water which will evaporate will be carried away by the wind which comes from the south-east. The wind blows north-west to Angola, where there are mountains where the rivers rise and where the mist in the air descends as rain. The hon. member will admit that when air laden with mist comes in contact with mountains, it rains. Now I want to give an explanation about Lake Chad and the Canary Islands. The explanation is that there are no longer any mountains there. If there were mountains, then the dampness would result in rain. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet says the scheme is vague.

The commission’s report says so.

The report absolutely proves what Professor Schwarz alleged. The only thing that the commission does not believe is what I have just dealt with. The Minister of Agriculture wants to know why the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) disapproved of the scheme in 1920. In that year the then Prime Minister had the same information as the Minister of Agriculture, and he was told that the survey of the Kalahari would cost £50.000. Then they did not yet know about using motors and aeroplanes to expedite the work and reduce the costs.

Had they no motors and aeroplanes in 1920?

It is a suggestion that I made, but at that time it was not yet thought of. The information furnished to the Government at that time was based on the views of Maj. Leipoldt and Mr. Kanthack. I have a letter here in which Maj. Leipoldt says that he is in favour of the building of the barrage at the Katambora river. It is asked how we shall be benefited. If there is a larger rainfall in those parts, then the dampness will by means of evaporation and winds be carried to Angola, and gradually the influence of the dampness will reach southward, and in that way our rainfall will be increased. The Minister says that the water will percolate away, but that is what is happening to-day. It is, however, the same water that is found in wells and bore-holes of the farmers in the Union. What the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) says is the strongest support that could he given to my motion.

Will it have any effect on the wells in the Union?

Do you know that water runs for more than 5,000 miles underground?

What certainty have you?

The presence of subterranean rivers and fountains. The certainty that water is found. All the artesian wells prove that water percolates for a long distance. I know that it is difficult to convince a cat against its will, and I am sorry that the Minister cannot take the same view as I do. The matter has nothing to do with politics, but only concerns the improvement of the South African water supply. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has advocated more mud dams and sluits, but the result will be that he will come again to the House for writings-down. We must have a larger view on the matter of water supply, and then we should not have irrigation works the failures they have been in the past.

Those are the ones you built.

We have to write them down to-day, and hundreds of reasons are given for the failures. The actual reason, however, is that it has not rained enough. The rain usually is in the form of thunder showers, which wash down sand and soil with the water. Consequently, the dams silt up or the ground underneath the dams becomes brackish. I think that the acceptance of my motion would appear to be of great value in the future, and I am sorry that the Minister cannot see his way to go into it.

Motion put and negatived.

I move—

I shall not detain the House long. I am glad that the Minister of Railways and Harbours is present, but I want to say that I am not introducing the motion because I think that it is a lengthy plea, and that the acceptance thereof by the House, will have the least result. I regard the motion as nothing else but a farce. The Minister, indeed, is here, but even if he listened to the motion and all the amendments he could not remember everything. If railway lines are to be built on the recommendation of the House then matters will not proceed satisfactorily, and that is why the railway board has been established. Unfortunately, the rules of the House require me to introduce the motion. I should be glad if we could follow some other procedure, that we could present petitions to the Clerk of the House, and that he should hand them over to the Railway Board. Year after year we come here with these motions, and it is only a waste of time, because the motion and the amendment are passed en bloc, and then referred to the Railway Board. There are parts of the country which have never yet asked for a railway, but yet the Railway Board have visited them and lines have been built. I can therefore be short. It is usually said that the line is necessary for the constituency, but my railway is a link in the chain which is being built in the eastern portion of the Free State. If it is built it will assure a shorter way from East London to the Rand, and also a shorter journey to Natal for the carriage of coal. I have already called the attention of the Railway Board in the past to all the advantages, and want again to bring the matter to its notice. Other hon. members want an opportunity of speaking, and I shall, therefore, close now.

There being no seconder, the motion dropped.

I move—

If hon. members will refer to the Bill now before the House they will see that the very lengthy negotiations which have taken place between the Durban Corporation and the Railway Administration, and which are embodied in the agreement of August and October, 1924, are now placed before the House for confirmation and ratification. Clause 13 of the agreement provides for its ratification, and hon. members will see that the Corporation of Durban have agreed to give all the assistance necessary in ratifying this agreement. Clause 2 refers to the power of levying rates. Railway property is, however, exempt; Clause 3 deals with the question of roads and thoroughfares; Clause 4 with the question of licence duties, and Clause 5 with the ratification of the agreement of 1924. I have here a statement by counsel for the Durban Corporation in which he indicates that the Durban Corporation are satisfied with the terms of this Bill, and gives his agreement to the passage thereof.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee to-morrow.

I move—

I hope the Minister’s motion will not be agreed to. Here again we have an attempt to try and rush through the Medical Bill when nobody is expecting that anything of this kind is coming on, and when the Minister in charge of the Bill is not present. It is not a fair thing to the House. We have had the unexpected collapse of the railway motion and two other matters, and I do ask the Minister of Finance not to press this motion.

Does the hon. member object?

Yes, I object.