I move—

During the debate on the second reading, of this Bill I was rather severely attacked in reference to the matter of changing the electrification between Pietermaritzburg and Durban to the northern section, that is to say from Pietermaritzburg to Glencoe Junction. Unfortunately, as I had already spoken in that debate, I had not an opportunity of replying, and now I take the first opportunity of saying a few words in regard to this matter. I wish to say at once that I take the sole responsibility for making that change in regard to the part of the line which was to be electrified. When I came into office I stopped the going on with the electrification of the line between Durban and Pietermaritzburg, and sanctioned the electrification of the line northward.

You stopped it altogether?

It had not really been started. No money had been spent so far as concerns the starting of that work. Let me say at once that I have never yet seen any reason to regret that decision. I believe to-day, as I believed then, that I acted in the interests of the country, and in the interests of the railway department in the change that I then made. It has been said that I did it off my own bat, as it were, and did not consult the Railway Board and the general manager of railways. I do not pretend to know the exact time when I may have consulted the board and the general manager, but I was in the closest possible touch, in fact, during the whole time I was in office, with the Railway Board, and there was not a day passed when we had not a consultation on some matter or other, and I have not the remotest shadow of a doubt, in my own mind, that I consulted with them. I have here also the report of the Railway Board dated 31st December, 1921, addressed to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, in which they say—

I adopted what I believed was the best plan. If it did cost a little more time it was for the benefit of the country and of the Railway Department. What does the general manager himself say at the same time? I have also a report from him—

That deals with the question of whether I did not consult either the board or the general manager. What was the position about that time, September, 1921. We were then very hard pressed to get the traffic down from the north, south towards Durban. Where there was most congestion was in that section of the line from Glencoe Junction right down to Pietermaritzburg. Not only that, but the traffic on the Natal line was rapidly increasing. When Merz and McLellan’s first report was put up, in June, 1919, we were carrying about 13,000 tons per diem. In 1921, we were carrying some days, I do not say on the average, 18,370 tons a day, and there was every sign of this going on. It was obvious that we must have increased facilities. As the general manager points out you could get these facilities best through electrification. What was the position south of Pietermaritzburg, the line between Pietermaritzburg and Durban? We had doubled that line. There were two lines running between Pietermaritzburg and Durban at that particular time. One had just been opened. I think it cost about £800,000. We could carry all the traffic that came along, so there was no necessity to electrify that line, but there was a very pressing necessity as these reports show, for electrifying the line north of Pietermaritzburg. Therefore it appeared to me, as I believe it will appear to most hon. members when they know the facts, merely ordinary commonsense that we wanted further facilities not south of Pietermaritzburg but north of Pietermaritzburg, on that section of the line which was so congested between Pietermaritzburg and Glencoe. As a matter of fact, that was the opinion of the board, as I have already shown from their letter. It was also the opinion of the general manager, and it was the opinion at that time of the consulting engineers, Messrs. Merz and McLellan, because what do they say?—

A little later on they say—

So they recommended electrification in preference to doubling the line. Would any fair-minded man occupying the position we did at that time not have done exactly the same as I did or as the Government of the day did? They state it is no use going on with the line in the south, but we must give facilities north of Pietermaritzburg when rapidly increasing traffic was coming along, I do not see how it was possible, applying ordinary commonsense to it, to come to any other conclusion. It has been suggested that we might have doubled the line north of Pietermaritzburg instead of electrifying it. That was very carefully considered. Here is what the general manager says on that very point—

The recommendation of the general manager himself was against doubling the line. I say quite advisedly it was discussed, and at one time I was in favour of doubling the line, but electrification was going to give us far and away better results. In the same report in Table 8 we have the financial results of electrification. It was estimated that the actual working expenses with steam were £577,000 and with electrical working £339,000, or an annual saving of £237,000. That was in the report of Messrs. Merz and McLellan. Under those circumstances, how could a man decide otherwise than decide for electrification as against doubling the line. Another charge has been mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) and that is that we did not give sufficient time to the engineers to prepare their plans, and hence mistakes were made. Let me point out, in the first place, that in the first report dated June, 1919, it was not a question merely of the survey by the consulting engineers of the line between Durban and Pietermaritzburg, but of the whole line between Durban and Glencoe, which was surveyed, and the estimates were given for working that line, as shown in Tables 5 and 6—

The essential difference was that the first survey was made on the basis of 20,000 tons per diem. We wanted a survey made from Pietermaritzburg north to Glencoe on the basis of carrying 30,000 tons per diem, which is a very material difference; and Messrs. Merz and McLellan sent Mr. Lydell to prepare estimates at once on that basis. I have no recollection whether we told him to hurry up. I do not know, I frankly admit at once. It must be remembered it was a little over five years ago. The only reference to time I find here is on page 10—

This does indicate that he was pressed for time. I cannot imagine that Mr. Lydell, who was a very qualified engineer, did not insist on taking ample time to arrive at correct estimates. He knew his reputation and his firm’s reputation, which is world-wide, was involved in this, and besides, he had the foundation laid in the previous report. He had the report dealing with the line from Durban to Glencoe to go upon. He acknowledged assistance from men who are amongst the leading men on the railways—Mr. Titren, now superintendent of motive power, Mr. Watermeyer, now in charge of the electrification on the Wynberg line, Mr. MacCoombe, now the secretary of the Electricity Board, and Mr. Cheadle, operating superintendent on the line itself. It is his own fault entirely if he did not get sufficient time, and I do not see how that explanation can carry any weight,

He never said that.

I have never heard any complaint from him about the time. Under those circumstances I venture to think that no blame attaches to the then Government from that point of view. I have endeavoured to put before the House the clearest and frankest explanation of what took place, and if hon. members will look at the reports they will see such is the case. In conclusion I would like to assert this quite clearly and frankly—this alternative was not hurriedly adopted, but carefully considered. Although I do not recollect a specific consultation with the board on the matter, knowing the close terms on which I worked with the board—sometimes I saw the board twice a day—I cannot conceive that in giving the fullest and frankest consideration to the whole thing a consultation did not take place. In addition, this alteration was concurred in both by the Railway Board, by the general manager and the consulting engineers. In the circumstances, we were more than justified in taking this up.

After the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) it is only fair that the House should be informed that the Select Committee on railways, but for a concession it made to the S.A. party, would have inserted a paragraph in the report condemning the action of the ex-Minister of Railways on electrification. However, after our experience we shall not be sportsmen enough to do that another time.

Who says you’re sportsmen?

I respect that after the way in which the S.A. party has abused our sportsmanship we shall see that this does not occur again so far as the railway committee is concerned. Out of consideration for the feelings of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) no paragraph appeared in the report condemning his autocratic action. I did expect that the hon. member would stand up and attempt to defend his action which is indefensible. Sir William Hoy and Mr. More were dead against electrification at the start. If hon. members want any further information on the subject they should refer to the report of the Select Committee which states that in 1921 the Government decided to abandon the Durban-Pietermaritzburg scheme altogether and instead decided to electrify the Pietermaritzburg-Glencoe section. In the taking of evidence a difference arose as to the authority for departing from the original plan to electrify the Durban-Pietermaritzburg section to the present electrification of the Pietersmaritzburg Glencoe section of the Natal line. The general manager’s evidence on this matter is contained in questions 1352 to 1360 and 3597 to 3599. I asked Sir William Hoy in question 1352, who expressed regret that “the Minister proceeded somewhat precipitately,” whether that meant that he went against the wishes of the Railway Board and the witness, and took entire responsibility for prematurely embarking on the scheme. Sir William Hoy, in the course of his reply said—

Subsequently Sir William Hoy made a report to the Minister and the Railway Board and they then decided to proceed with the line to Pietermaritzburg to Glencoe. I asked Sir William—

Sir William replied—

It is clear that this Government is not responsible for the electrification scandal but that the ex-Minister of Railways is mainly responsible for spending this huge sum of money. Judging from the interjections, I suppose some hon. members want to make this a bioscope show where they would be more at home than they are here, but I want to try to prove that the whole scheme was prematurely embarked upon and that it was a grave blunder to electrify a single line, when the general manager and Mr. More, A.G.M., Durban, were in favour of first doubling the line under steam. On page 658, Q. 3527 Mr. More was asked if he would have preferred the line being doubled under steam, and he replied in the affirmative. Then in Q. 3532 he said that the construction of the double line would have cost £1,500,000; further in Q. 3535 he was asked—

and he replied, Yes, all of which goes to show that the opinions of the general manager and other responsible persons were ignored, and that the ex-Minister is mainly responsible for the decision to spend an enormous sum of money in a premature scheme of electrification and also, on his own initiative completely change the original plan that had been approved by Parliament.

I am surprised to hear it claimed that the resolution was passed to meet the wishes of the South African party members. The resolution as passed was drafted by the Chairman, Dr. Visser; and when the draft was put into the hands of the committee, it was considered for the first time. It is strange that we have Mr. More quoted now, as the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) was one of those who would not consider his evidence. It was brushed aside, and he said it was useless. I am surprised to hear it quoted here to-day by him. I should like to give some further quotations. The hon. member put this question to the general manager. It was not really a question but a statement meant to fasten the blame on the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)—

Another question—

The question was put to the general manager, and I am sorry to bring the general manager into this discussion, but this attack has been made on the late Minister, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

The Minister had the right to put his opinion forward, and his opinion was that the change should be made. He recommended it, and the general manager agreed, and the board approved of it. Then it was asked—

What more do you want? Supposing the general manager gave the strongest evidence against the Minister of Railways, was the hon. member for Salt River honest in supporting this report? The hon. member read part of it, and I am going to read the whole of it—

That was the report of the Committee and now how can hon. members get up and endeavour to get behind that report? I would like to return to another portion of the report, and it is a unanimous report drafted by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser)—

I do not hear a word of complaint about that. They go back on their own report and try to blame the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

The whole cause of the trouble was that the technical advisers in South Africa were not consulted. It seems very strange that members who sit upstairs and consider an important report like this, drafted by their Chairman, and accepting it should now come down here and try and get behind it.

My name has so frequently been drawn in as having signed the report as Chairman of the Committee that I think a few words from me are necessary. The white paper that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) referred to, of course, had to be submitted to Parliament. When a change of programme had been decided upon they had to come to Parliament. The white paper was subsequent to the change of programme. I want to say something in reference to that report. I, as Chairman of the Committee, wanted to have unanimity and in the original draft which I prepared there was a clause which absolutely ascribed on whom rested the responsibility of changing over the scheme. The member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) one day said that this side of the House treated the other side in too ladylike a fashion. I am sorry to say that my side of the Committee treated the other side of the Committee in too ladylike a fashion. When they found that these words were put in that clause of the report, my side was satisfied to draw attention to those questions that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has drawn attention to on page 15, clause 6. We thought everybody who read that report would see where the screw was lose and we, therefore, thought it was not necessary to draw in the name of so distinguished a gentleman as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). whom everyone in the House holds in the highest respect. I want to ask the hon. member a question. If the hon. member denies it, I accept his denial. It came out in the evidence that at the lunch given to him at Durban by the Chamber of Commerce the hon. member said he was definitely against electrification in Natal altogether. When he found out afterwards that pressure was brought to bear upon him, he said—

That is the cause of the whole trouble. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) as Minister of Railways was an autocrat. You will see there that Mr. Orr, a member of the board, protested that neither the general manager nor he (Mr. Orr) had any say in the matter at all. The cause of the switching over of the electrification in Natal and the increase in expenditure must be borne by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

Exactly.

He was man enough this afternoon to accept the responsibility. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is continually getting up and saying that it was the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) who drew up this report. I want the House to know that it was out of consideration and courtesy to hon. members on the other side that we left out the name of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). This has been to me a bitter lesson and I know now and I shall know in future how to treat members of the Opposition.

I am sure that the House was looking forward eagerly to hearing the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) and we are very pleased that he has condescended to give some light on the subject of this electrification in Natal in his capacity as chairman of the Railway Committee. What this House was looking forward to was an explanation by the hon. member as to why he entered into that sleeper contract. Perhaps his silence is also to be ascribed to his “ladylike” feeling towards the South African party. We who take an interest in parliamentary government and the purity of public life did expect the hon. member to say something in regard to his entering into that notorious contract. There was a meaning behind his silence. The conclusion is this, that he dare not enter into the discussion and give an explanation to the House. Perhaps that is something to be said to his credit, and if there is one weak point in the defence of the Minister of Railways in the speech he made the other day it is in regard to this question of the sleeper contract. I am not discussing the technicalities, the legal position of the contract, but what I have to do with is the political morality in regard to that contract.

What about Jagger and Co.?

Here you have a contract entered into by the hon. member for Vrededorp, who is chairman of the Railway Committee. He entered into that contract without tender; no tender was asked for. It was done behind the scenes without the public knowing anything that was going on. If the hon. member had been successful in that contract he would have sat for three successive years and most likely as chairman of the Railway Committee have sat with the contract in his pocket. Is that conducive to purity of government and purity of administration? I will not pursue that question any further. I wish also to refer to the criticism which the Minister of Railways levelled the other day at certain members on this side who criticised the conduct of the Fruit Control Board in reference to their management of the fruit export business. I must say that I have followed with amazement the speech of the Minister. He worked himself up into a state of great excitement because members of Parliament, who represent the farmers’ interests in this big national industry, got up and criticised the conduct of the control board, which last session the Minister deliberately set up as a State institution. We are accused of ulterior motives and, not only that, but the Minister also insinuates that we were guilty of dishonesty. I would ask the Minister to descend from that lofty pedestal of his. Let him remember the doctrine which he always preached, that Ministers are the servants of Parliament and the servants of the people. Take my own case. The Minister said that the hon. member for Caledon came into the House and made an attack simply for political purposes. He did not even extend to me the courtesy of accepting the spirit which I displayed in making those remarks in regard to the control board. I made it perfectly clear to the Minister that I was speaking in no partizan spirit. I even went so far as to say that I did not wish to condemn the control board, but I simply passed on to the Minister facts which had been laid before me as the member representing the Elgin area of the Caledon district. These farmers, representing the Elgin Co-operative Society, at great sacrifice to themselves, came a big distance to inform their member here in Cape Town of their difficulties and when I conveyed those facts to the Minister in a calm and non-partizan spirit, the Minister gets up and accuses me of political bias and says that I simply got up in a spirit of dishonesty in order to mislead the House and the country and the fruit farmers. I brought those facts to the notice of Parliament. What was the result? The control board, in reply admitted that there was a bank-up of fruit at the docks and a serious one, a fact which was concealed from my constituents up to February 25. Then for the first time it was explained to them that there was a bank-up. They further admitted, in the main, the details I gave as to the cancellation of freight by the board. What justification does the Minister adduce for this attack upon me? As far as I understood his remarks he based it solely upon this, that I was invited by the chairman of the Fruit Control Board to discuss the situation with him. I gave the public press the version of what took place between me and the chairman of the board, and by that version I stand. Whether the Minister is prepared to accept it does not concern me. But the Minister goes further. I have here a letter written by the chairman of the Fruit Control Board explaining what took place between me and him, but he never states what the Minister stated in his speech, that the offer made to me was—

No. The offer by Mr. le Roux was an incidental offer in the lobby, and I explained to him at once that I could not at that moment accept the offer. Several days transpired between that interview and the time of my speech in the House. No further request was extended to me to interview the control board. Apart from any invitation are members of Parliament to be assailed by Ministers and their conduct questioned and motives ascribed to them because they do not first resort to the offices of the officials who are in the pay of Parliament, before ventilating grievances which vitally affect the interests of their constituents? I would like to know who is responsible to the people. Are these officials responsible to the people, or is Parliament? Those boards and officials multiply yearly, and I say it would be a sorry day for this country when this Parliament loses or weakens its control over the public service of this country. Take the Minister himself. The Minister knows that when we have grievances against the administration of the Railway Department we do not go to hole-and-corner meetings with these officials or with himself. No, we take these grievances as we find them and as they are brought to us, by our constituents, and the Minister is brought to book in the House. I shall certainly not surrender that privilege, that sacred privilege, which we as members of Parliament have, in regard to the Fruit Control Board. The Minister charged me with trying to undermine the confidence in this board of the farmers. Let me tell the Minister the members of the board are unknown to me, with the exception of the chairman. We have here got to do not with persons, but with a big national industry. I did not for a moment intend to influence public opinion against the control board or to undermine confidence, but the Minister, by making that statement and that charge, only presupposes that the control board had a very weak case to put up in defence of these complaints. There is nothing sacred about this control board. If there are complaints members of Parliament have a perfect right to ventilate them in Parliament. This is the place where complaints are to be ventilated; this is the body that represents the people and this is the body which the people look up for redress from their grievances. Take the case of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The hon. member for Newlands is a recognized business man of repute right through South Africa, but his business ability is impugned by the Minister—

The hon. member, apart from being a thorough business man of repute, is also a practical fruit farmer, a man whose has put more capital into fruit farming than, I suppose, the members the Minister has put on that board. An hon. member of that stamp comes forward to speak on behalf of that industry of which he knows so much, and the Minister flings at him the imputation that he comes forward for party purposes and that he is trying to undermine the influence of, and the confidence in, the control board. I want to bring some important questions to the notice of the Minister. One is whether the Minister is aware that the Union-Castle Company made an offer to take all the fruit which the farmers had for export at a reasonable figure? If that is so why was that offer not entertained? What the farmers feel is that it would be better to have an arrangement with one responsible company, a company which has in the past done a great deal to assist the development of the industry and which, to a certain extent has come forward and done what it could to provide the necessary accommodation and cold storage in their vessels. They feel also that once that arrangement has been come to with this responsible company and difficulties arise, as have now arisen in this case, that such a company would more easily meet the wishes of farmers in the way of fruit than if you had to deal with different shipping concerns. The second question is this, and I consider it to be of very supreme importance. It is whether the Fruit Control Board has the legal power to discriminate between one fruitgrower and another in the way of giving priority for one class of fruit over another and penalizing, by heavy freight, those people who get priority at present? The exact interpretation of the law on this point strikes at the very root of co-operation among farmers in the fruit business. I would advise the Minister to take the best legal advice upon that point, and after he has obtained such advice, to take the farmers and the public into his confidence upon that point. The farmers are under the impression that the law gives power to the board to discriminate between certain classes of products like eggs and fruit, but that the board has no power to discriminate between one class of fruit and another. If this point is not cleared up the Minister may find that, there being strong feeling among the fruit farmers on this legal aspect, they may be forced to go to the Supreme Court, and if the Fruit Control Board were to be unsuccessful upon a point of this nature, I am afraid that would really undermine the authority of the board and shake the confidence of the fruitgrowers in their administration. I hope upon this important point the Minister will make due enquiry and then take the fruit farmers into his confidence.

The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) has informed us this afternoon that he has learned a very bitter lesson. His meaning was, if I can gather it at all, that when you come in contact with honest men, treat them as rogues and act accordingly. Now the evidence in connection with the point raised is overwhelming. If there were even such a thing as an honourable understanding in connection with the late Minister’s responsibility which, of course, is absurd, as the records show that it was never even discussed, but if such an honourable understanding existed, we know that the first people to break that honourable understanding were his own colleagues behind him, if it were true—which it is not—that there was any evidence in the committee to connect the hon. member for Cape town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) with the responsibility for the mess-up that took place in the carrying out of the contract, the hon. member’s collegues were the first to come into the House and abuse the understanding. But there was no such evidence. The committee came to their finding on the perfectly reasonable and logical basis that the right thing had been done in switching off from one section of the line to another. Every authority supported it strongly. Let me read this by the general manager—

We know perfectly well what evidence was before the Select Committee, and what the meaning of those words was. Whoever was responsible, it was the right and only thing to do. Why, then, all this clap-trap—although this is hardly the language to use in a discussion of this sort, which should be on a high plane. The reason is simply this. Those who are trained in war know that the best form of defence is offence, and it is with the object of drawing off attention from their own many shortcomings, rail and sleeper contracts and what not, that this purely artificial attack is put up against the late Minister for Railways. But there are still a number of matters in connection with this contract which have not yet been cleared up, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours has shown a great reluctance to clear up these points. There is this matter of split rails. All we know is that 25 per cent of rails lying in stock have been condemned by our experts out here against being laid at all. We know, further, that these rails were purchased in a certain market—Belgium—and were passed by someone who cannot have carried out his duty to this country as effectively as one would have expected him to do in connection with such a tremendous order as that. We go further, and the selected rails, passed by local engineers as apparently sound, have been placed on the open lines, and a tremendous number of these have failed in outer curves, and have split between the web and the rail. We know that in value rails have had to be removed in thousands at a tremendous loss and cost to the country. That has taken place in connection with the electrified lines to a greater extent than in any other part of the country. We know that the damage is confined almost entirely to the outer, and not the inner, curve. We ask wherein lies the explanation? The Minister knows perfectly well the explanation and the reason, but for a reason we cannot fathom, he will not tell the House what is responsible for the damage, and what steps are being taken to prevent it from recurring. I ask him to be perfectly frank, and I ask, has any party of Swiss engineers, builders of these particular engines in Natal, been over the Natal section lately. Have they inquired into the running of these units and their effect on the construction of the road—their effect on the wear and tear of the lines? If it is true that they have been over these lines, inspected these things, and come to any decision as to the cause, has the Minister received any report, however technically or guardedly worded, or any suggestion from them as to where the cause for the damage lies? If he would tell us this he would have gone a long way. But I would like him to go a little bit further. This matter cost the country thousands and thousands of pounds, and will lead the country to yet further trouble. Has any evidence been brought to show that these units, which were recommended to the country by Messrs. Merz & McLellan, are actually the very best type of units to be got for our purposes? On the contrary, if that is not so, was that type of unit not more or less obsolete in some respects, when we took these units over? Is the fault not due largely to the centre of gravity being too low? Was this not at the time pointed out by the manufacturers? Any hon. member who knows anything about mechanics and understands the meaning of the word, unsprung balance, knows that when the centre of gravity of an engine is too low you have no means of distributing the vibration— the rails have to take the whole of the strain, and go under. On the other hand, modern steam engines have a high centre of gravity, and the strain is distributed. This afternoon I would also ask him to say whether he had any report from his own department or his own departmental officers as to this line, if so, has he sent it to Messrs. Merz & McLellan for their opinion on it, and has the report come back to South Africa? If so, whom does Messrs. Merz & McLellan hold responsible? Do they say there is a mistake in connection with these electrical units—I think it is most unlikely that they will say so, because they were responsible for the construction of the engines—or do they still hold our own officers responsible? The country is entitled to an answer.

I would not have intervened in this third reading discussion except for some unfortunate phrases in the speeches of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). The House has entrusted most important duties to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, which has to deal with an expenditure of £28,000,000, equal to the annual consolidated revenue of this country. It would appear from the speeches of these two hon. members that this committee is liable to be influenced by considerations other than its duties to this House. As a member of that committee I resent it, and after sitting on that committee for three years I can only hope that these two hon. members speak for themselves only, and not for any other member of the committee. It is a most unfortunate thing if this House should lose confidence in this most important committee, and it is just as well to remind the House that not only is there a House of Assembly, but there are also the public and the country which have to take note of these things, and if they lost confidence in the committees appointed by this House it means a very bad and regrettable state of affairs indeed. We have to deal with technical questions of vast importance and far-reaching consequences and not being professional men, we can only have an imperfect acquaintance with these matters; careful attention, therefore, has to be given to the evidence bearing on these important matters. We have a chairman of the Select Committee whose conduct with regard to the contract which has been discussed has been left unexplained by the Minister, and it puts us in a very awkward position indeed. It is to be regretted that the Minister did not take the opportunity he had on the second reading to make the frankest and fullest disclaimer of the contract of the chairman of the Select Committee. It is not too late yet, and I hope he will assure the House that such contracts will not occur again. That is his plain duty. As to the matter discussed earlier with regard to electrification the whole thing boils down to two single facts—the change of policy which decided that electrification north of Maritzburg should be installed rather than south of Maritzburg. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been blamed for this, and a good deal of political capital has been sought to be made out of the position. It turns out that the change was an admirable one of policy, and that when it was explained to those who had to endorse it—the general manager and the railway board—which were just as keen and enthusiastic on it as the then Minister himself. I do not know how it is possible for any individual to say that this change was otherwise than to the benefit of the country and it will eventually prove itself to be to the great economic advantage of the railway system. Another point which the Select Committee went into carefully and brought out—but, unfortunately, could not be discussed in this House—was that any undue excess of the estimates was mainly due, not to the late Minister of Railways and Harbours, but to the fact that the fullest advantage was not taken of consulting the railway professional staff we have in this country. Had this been done I make bold to say at least one million would have been saved. We are fortunate in having in this country a railway technical staff that is second to none, and is surpassed by none in any other administration in the world; and we have learned the lesson that it does not pay to go behind this vast technical and above all local experience which these men have obtained. I hope this House will not get the idea—which would be incorrect— that the Select Committee of Railways and Harbours is a white-washing institution Nothing of the sort takes place as far as I am aware. I suppose the chairman of the committee is speaking of himself—of the ladylike institution—if it is a ladylike institution he is “ assisted by a husband ” from outside with regard to these resolutions.

I agree with the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) that it is a pity this discussion has arisen at this stage; but there are one or two points which seem to have been evaded by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and other hon. members who have spoken—that the cost of electrification has exceeded by nearly l½ millions the cost as first estimated. The evidence given before the select committee should be read by hon. members as well as the committee’s recommendations. I am not looking for the hon. member’s scalp, nor do I believe that he made the change for an ulterior motive—he believed that he was doing something in the interests of the country. But that change threw out his engineers’ plans by five months, and that went very largely towards the extra expenditure. A large amount of money was spent because the work could not be done in proper sequence, so that the scheme has to carry a burden which it would not have to bear but for the alterations and for the contractors having to do the work before the plans were completed. The contractor’s engineers and Mr. Wallace, the chief engineer, distinctly stated that this threw the plans out by five months. I believe that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) did what he thought was right. I think, however, when Parliament has decided on a scheme involving a million of money, anyone in authority should be chary of altering it without coming back to Parliament for its authority.

But we did come back.

But you did not tell Parliament that the change was going to cost an additional £1.500,000. The fact is that the scheme has to earn interest on this additional amount. Another fact that emerges is that we rely too much on advice from overseas, no matter how trifling a scheme is.

At that time we had had no experience of electrification.

So far as the machinery was concerned, you required advice, but certainly not as regards the foundations and masts, regarding which our own civil engineers were able to advise the Minister much better than could people from overseas. The contractors put in foundations too heavy for the work. We should rely more on men trained in South Africa, and we should give young South Africans a chance. The hon. member will never be Minister of Railways again, but whoever is should take a lesson from this unfortunate experience.

The late Minister of Railways (Mr. Jagger) was the saviour of the country. We have listened this afternoon to a great deal that has been said before over and over again. There will be plenty of time to use these arguments when the general election comes, but I do not see any possible chance of that until 1929, otherwise billets worth £2,500 a year and jobs for pals will then disappear. On two or three occasions when Ministers replied to questions, supplementary queries were put to them, but they refused to answer. I can understand a Minister if he has not the information saying so and asking that the question be put on the Paper. That would have been the courteous attitude to adopt.

The hon. member must confine himself to the question of railways.

I do not wish to get behind your ruling, sir, but when I raised the question when the chairman of committees was in the chair, he said that I should wait until we got to the third reading, and now I do so on the third reading, you stop me.

Does the hon. member wish to discuss the point with regard to questions on railway matters?

I want to discuss the question of the courtesy or discourtesy of Ministers.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot do that now.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I do not pose as a fruit farmer. I would like to refer to the question that arose between the Minister and myself on the second reading in order to prove the second part of my case. I think the Minister agrees that I proved the first part, the existence of dirty trucks. The other part of my case, to which, however, the Minister took very great exception, concerned the board’s letter to the “ Cape Times,” in which it was stated that they cancelled the freight engaged on the “ Llandaff Castle ” on January 24th, but on February 2nd, over a week later, they seriously sat down to discuss with a committee whether they should cancel the “ Llandaff’s ” freight, or the “ Bendigo’s ” freight. After reading this letter several times, I think that probably a mistake has arisen, and that the board did not cancel the freight on January 24th, but possibly February 24th, which would clear up the point, for there is no reason to call a committee to discuss the advisability of doing something when you have already done it. If the Minister will agree that the board’s letter is wrong, then I have proved my case. Was the freight by the “ Llandaff ” cancelled on January 24th, nine days before they called the committee together to decide whether they should cancel it or not? I would like now to refer to the action the board took in granting priority of shipment to certain soft fruits. I have considerable sympathy with the pear-growers, whose position is this: First they have to pay cold storage for fruit awaiting shipment; for that they are compensated by a lower rate of freight, but against that their fruit will be deteriorated by remaining three or four weeks in cold storage. Then, at the end of March, four weeks’ shipments of pears will be shipped and will have to find a market in England simultaneously, and this will very considerably reduce the price, hence the growers are in no way compensated for receiving a lower rate of freight. The pear-growers are very disappointed, for this year has been a particularly bad one as regards the crop. Under ordinary circumstances, a short crop should mean a higher price, because of lessened competition. He had a good opportunity of getting a good price for his pears, because there was a short crop, but, owing to the bulking of the whole of the pear crop for four weeks, and the sudden swamping of the market with a four weeks’ supply, the effect was the grower would get a low price.

How are you going to avoid that?

By doing what the growers ask, by giving priority of shipment in the order of priority of arrival at the docks. That has been the sheet-anchor of the farmers all through. They have fought for this principle ever since this matter has been going on. That was their only protection against all kinds of difficulties. They insisted that the fruit should be shipped in the order it arrived. I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the deciduous exchange was asked a short time ago whether they were prepared to go back from that one principle, and whether they did not refer it to the co-operative societies, who, in reply, said they would not go back from that principle that the fruit should be shipped in the order of its arrival. When we were discussing this matter last, the Minister took up the position that we were making a mountain out of a molehill, and that we were frightening the farmers, and he took up the position that there was not much cause for anxiety. I am rather inclined to agree with the Minister and with the board. The Minister’s excitement about the subject has made the farmers more anxious than they were before, and has aggravated the position to a great extent. He is therefore responsible for the anxiety. I think myself that the position to-day does not give cause for anxiety, such as the position of affairs did the year before last. I think the position has improved very much. That being the case, I want to ask the Minister why he talks of the necessity of abrogating those principles which the fruitgrowers have stuck to for so long, and why he gives the excuse that it is an emergency measure? In his letter of the 10th, published in the “ Cape Times ” on the 16th, he refers to the decision to alter that practice as a decision which should not be taken as a precedent, but should be taken in the light of an emergency measure. I feel if you alter this fundamental principle so easily, you are going to get into trouble. I doubt the Minister’s judgment in saying that the state of affairs is so bad with regard to the soft fruit that we have to abrogate the fundamental principles which have governed the shipment of fruit. I do not think there is sufficient cause for having done this, and if anybody has frightened the farmer on this export business, it is the Minister himself. I should like to ask the Minister to tell us in his reply, when this decision was come to, were all his permanent members of the board present, and was it a decision of his permanent advisers as a whole? I am still of the opinion I was, before I heard the Minister’s statement, that the best way to deal with the position is to revert back to the status quo ante. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) suggested one of the shipping companies, I think it was the mail company, would be in a position to guarantee the lifting of the whole of this freight. To my mind the fruit farmers would be in a better position to get their fruit shipped if they came to some arrangement with the company of that nature, because they are naturally in touch with the whole of the freight market of the world. The fruit farmer now knows what he did not recognize a year or two ago, and that is, he is bound to pay a certain amount of money for dead freight. He pays now about ten shillings a ton on dead freight, but if he could go to the shipping company and ask them to take his freight at five shillings a ton more than the rates that have been charged, he would then be five shillings a ton better off at the end of the season; that is, if the shipping people would take the risk of the dead freight, and not the farmer. Now the whole risk of the cost of dead freight falls on the fruit-grower. It would be better for the fruit-grower to know the exact price he is going to pay in freightage, and let the shipping company charge a price that would cover the risk for dead freight. I should like to give a few figures to the Minister on another matter arising out of the remarks of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that the sun of English commercial supremacy was quickly setting. The Minister probably knows what weight to attach to the remarks of the hon. member. As far as I know, I have not seen any figures which in any way bear out the statement of the hon. member for Winburg. I will give the figures regarding the export of locomotives. The international export of locomotives of the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States of America, and France in 1913 was £6,889,000 and out of this total of international exports the United Kingdom exported £2.782,000. In 1926 the United Kingdom, out of a total export of £6,045,000, exported £3.043,000. These figures are up to 1926, and are, therefore, right up-to-date, and they show that the export of locomotives from England was more than the total export of Germany, United States of America and France combined. That does not look as if the manufacturers of the United Kingdom need spend any sleepless nights on the matter, and I urge the hon. Minister to think over these figures because they rather confirm the opinion that the locomotive from the United Kingdom is the best value in the market. I am not one of those who criticize the hon. Minister for taking the cheapest article. I am with him when he says he is running a business concern and that he wants to buy in the cheapest market. But I do not want him to be confused between cheapness and low price. The lowest price is not necessarily the cheapest, and the opinion of the world in the export of locomotives in 1926 is that Great Britain is the cheapest in the long run.

I want to ask the Minister if he will give information with regard to a statement in this morning’s “ Cape Times ” that there is a line projecting to be built by an American company to develop certain manganese deposits. Is the statement correct, what will the route of the line be, is it to be constructed by American capital, or is it to be a loan to us or to a company, or what is the position? This is a matter of considerable interest.

I want to deal with the two points which have been raised this afternoon. The one is the question of the Perishable Products Export Control Board, and the other the question of electrification. With reference to the Perishable Products Export Control Board, and the action of; that board, raised by the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), I want to refer them to Clause 4 of the Act, Section (1) sub-section (a)—

Clause 16 defines what “ perishable products ” mean. It means any of the following articles intended for export—fruit, eggs, butter, tea and other products are declared to be perishable products.

One is in the singular and the other is in the plural.

Yes, but my hon. friend will notice that in Clause 4 it states that it shall be the function and duty of the board—

In the body of the clause it refers specially to the regulation. In the regulation which has been published it has been made quite clear that—

also refers to all classes of fruit. The advice I have is that the action of the board is in accordance with the law and, consequently, there can be no question as to the legality of their action.

When were the regulations published?

I do not know; I should say about ten months ago.

Have you taken legal opinion?

I do not think this is necessary, as to my mind the position is perfectly clear. I hope for the sake of the co-operation which is so necessary their conduct of the business of the board, and the whole of the export of our fruit, which is a national, and not a party, question, that it will not be necessary for the growers to take that action. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) asked me what the amount will be which the board expects to pay in dead freight this year. It is quite impossible for me to give a reply to that. It will have to be ascertained, of course, after the deciduous season is over. He has also asked me whether all the permanent members were present. My information is that the following permanent members attended: Mr. le Roux, the chairman, and Mr. Pare, with Mr. Buller, a representative member, and who represents the deciduous growers on the board. He has again said that he thinks the whole position would be met by the repeal of the Act and by placing the whole matter in the hands of the farmers. I have indicated on a previous occasion that I cannot agree with him. We cannot possibly go back to the condition of chaos which existed in regard to the whole of our fruit export before the control board came into being, and now, especially with the large increase in the available products of this kind, it seems to me that it would be a very great mistake indeed to go back to the old position. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) have both referred to the question of the position of the exporters of pears. I thoroughly agree with my hon. friends when they say that the position of the exporters of pears undoubtedly may become very serious if there is a drop in the selling price during the month of April, when the pears will be exported. But the point I want to stress, and which seems to have been lost sight of, is that the decision of the board in connection with giving preference to grapes was taken in consultation with the pear growers, or rather with their representatives. When Mr. le Roux, the chairman, and Mr. Buller saw me before they took this action, and asked me for the necessary authority, I put the question to them whether they had consulted the interests concerned, and they assured me that the growers of pears had been consulted through their organizations, and that they agreed that, in view of the longer life of pears as against the shorter life of grapes, to the action taken. I think tribute is due to the growers of pears for their unselfish action in this regard, because it seems to me that they acted according to the true principle of co-operation. The hon. member for Newlands, though I do not know that it is necessary to go into the question again, has again raised the question of the action of the board in regard to the cancellation of freight on the “ Llandaff Castle.” I can only again repeat the facts as they appear from the correspondence. The position is that, on January 24th owing to the failure of fruit to come forward, the board cancelled the refrigerated space on the “ Llandaff Castle.” They met the growers on February 2nd, and fully explained the whole position to them. The growers then endorsed the action of the board. Hon. members must bear in mind that the space which had been booked on the Australian boat stood, because it was not possible to cancel that. In the middle of February, on the 17th, the flood of fruit began to come forward, and the board then endeavoured to get the Union-Castle Company to agree again to let them have the space on the “ Llandaff Castle,” but the Union-Castle Company refused, and said that they had made their commitments to the exporters of baled goods and, consequently, they were not able to accede to the request of the board. But the position is that when the space on the “ Llandaff Castle ” was cancelled on the 24th January, there was every justification for the action of the board. The fruitgrowers, who, through their co-operative society, were consulted on the 2nd February, agreed with the board that the action was necessary. It was only by the middle of February that the whole position changed. I had rather hoped that the hon. member for Caledon in his speech this afternoon would have referred to the extraordinary action of the Union-Castle Company in now sending forward to the control board a bill for the difference between the refrigerated charges and the charges for baled goods, which, of course, must be paid by the growers.

It was not known to me.

No, but it is clear from the letter which was published on March 8th, and I would have thought that the hon. member for Caledon, representing as he does very large fruit-growing interests, would have expressed his opinion in regard to this point. The Government takes a very serious view of this question, and I hope—I do not at this stage want to go any further than to say this—I hope the Union-Castle Company will, on reconsideration, agree not to charge the fruitgrowers with this difference in freight.

Was it not part of the agreement that they should pay for dead freight?

Undoubtedly. I do not dispute the right of the company to present the bill, but I do say this, in view of the fact that the “ Llandaff Castle ” was in Lourenco Marques when the position had so materially changed, and that the board had approached the Union-Castle Company for a return of the available refrigerated space, the company should act on the lines I have suggested.

You will have to pay the Australian boats.

I say that legally the company can maintain their position, but I hope they will realize that it will not be easy for the fruitgrowers to pay that bill. They charged the board with the difference in the freight for refrigerated space and baled goods. Of course, my hon. friend will not lose sight of the fact that there is a considerable saving to the company, for it stands to reason that the expense of carrying refrigerated goods from South Africa is very much higher than carrying baled goods. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has rather resented my criticism of the position as stated by him. I have never objected to criticism of the actions of the Control Board because, as three of the members of that board are paid through funds supplied by this Parliament, the right of hon. members to question the actions of those three members of that board is unquestionable. But what I want to stress again, and what must not be lost sight of is that this is an independent board of six members and that the Government have three nominated members on that board.

But by the casting vote of the chairman, surely the Government have a majority on the board?

The point is this. Surely it is reasonable to ask hon. members to submit complaints to the board in the first instance and to give the board an opportunity of clearing up any points that may be raised? It would be fair after they have failed to procure the necessary information that they should then come to Parliament and complain against the actions of the board as represented by three of the members. My complaint against the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is this, that while he was given an opportunity by the chairman of the board to be placed in possession of all the facts from the point of view of the board, he did not avail himself of that opportunity.

A qualified request in the lobby?

Yes, whether qualified or not, my hon. friend was informed by the chairman that he would be glad to give him any information he wanted. That is the whole point, and I think the hon. member must, on reflection agree with me that it was not fair that he should have come and undermined the confidence the public have had up to the present, and I am sure have still—after the publication of the correspondence—in the actions of the Control Board. I want to stress again that the export of our fruit is a national question, and hon. members should do everything in their power to strengthen the hands of the Control Board rather than to break down and undermine its influence.

Would you not strengthen their hands more by allowing them to be employees of the fruit-growers, instead of nominees of the Government?

I am not going into a question which the House deliberately decided last year, but I may remind hon. members opposite that the Fruit Exchange, representing the growers, loyally accepted that position.

Because they could do nothing else. But they did not approve of it.

The hon. member for Caledon has also asked me whether an offer has not been made to the Government by the Union-Castle Company to lift all the fruit. I hope he will not resent my asking him where he got this information, because I must say that this is most extraordinary. A confidential offer has been made to the Prime Minister in regard to the continuation and renewal of our mail contract, and I must say I am surprised now to hear from a member of the Opposition that he evidently has that information.

I rise to explain. I got this information from the Elgin Fruit Farmers’ Cooperative Society and from nobody else.

A representative of the Union-Castle Company travelling with us on the “ Edinburgh Castle ” gave me the same information on board.

Now we have got the information. I must say this is an extraordinary action towards the Prime Minister of this country that, while negotiations are being conducted with the Government, information should be given to members opposite.

What is the policy of the Government going to be?

My hon. friend wants to go a little too fast. I am still dealing with this question. As evidently the Union-Castle Company has seen fit to disclose this information, I want to say this, that the offer which the company has made to the Government with regard to the export of our fruit is totally unacceptable to the Government.

Why?

Because the conditions which they propose are impossible of acceptance, and the rates proposed too high, and would kill the fruit industry.

They could not be much higher than the board is charging, surely.

Are they more than 90s.?

My hon. friend has asked me what is the policy of the Government? I say the policy of the Government is as indicated by me on a previous occasion, viz., that the interests of the people of South Africa will be studied in this regard. We shall not allow the Union-Castle Company, or any other shipping company, to exploit the growers of this country. If the Union-Castle Company have seen fit to disclose the negotiations, let them give a full statement, but as far as the Government is concerned, we are not going to give information.

Your chickens have come home to roost.

It must have struck hon. members on this side how silent the right hon. member has been on this question when we remember how he raged last session. May I suggest to him why he has been so quiet? It is because he knows that Mr. Pickstone, Mr. Buller, Mr. Dicey, Mr. Smuts, Colonel Cunningham and all the big growers are with the board in this matter.

If you had taken my advice last year, and allowed the fruitgrowers to manage their own affairs, you would not be in the position you are in now.

No, the position is that the fruit-growers took the Government’s advice and did not follow the hon. member’s (Sir Thomas Smartt) lead. What the right hon. member would have liked was that the fruit-growers should have stood out.

Never; you know that is absolutely incorrect.

The fruit-growers of South Africa, both English and Dutch-speaking, are better South Africans than the hon. member over there. I now want to deal with the criticism levelled against my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), and against which he so valiantly defended himself. I sympathize with my hon. friend.

I don’t want your sympathy.

For two and a half days there was a mass attack; there was an attack on the Government which the Government could not withstand. That was the tactics of the Opposition. What does it now resolve itself into? In an attack on my hon. friend, and he now has to stand in a white sheet and has to defend himself, and all his friends over there have gathered round him to defend his actions.

There is no white sheet about it.

My hon. friend has been frank this afternoon. As far as I understand the position, there has been no criticism regarding the change-over from Durban-Maritzburg to Matitzburg and Glencoe. All that hon. members on this side have said is that the changeover was taken on the responsibility of my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) without consultation with the board and the general manager. Subsequently, the hon. member consulted the board and the general manager, and he certainly produced evidence that they subsequently endorsed his action on that question.

Did you consult the board on the Visser contract?

I did, and I did more than that. In the first instance, I referred the hon. member to my technical officers. The chief point is that the predecessor so hurried the consulting engineers that their estimate was not full and reliable.

That charge has not been proved.

The hon. member admitted it. He said—

These are the words he used this afternoon. I ask my hon. friend, business man as he is, whether when work costing more than £3,000,000 is undertaken it is desirable that the consulting engineers should do the work in a hurried manner?

I do not admit that at all. I quoted Mr. Lydell.

Mr. Lydell said that they were hurried. Does the hon. member dispute the fact that in their hurry they forgot to include Masons Mill? This work was omitted, and if such an important item was omitted there must have been something wrong in the manner in which the estimates was framed. Let me say, in justice to the general manager—the hon. member will find that in the evidence—that when once the Minister responsible had taken the decision with regard to the change-over, he (the general manager) felt in duty bound, as a loyal officer, to agree and give him every assistance. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has asked me a number of questions, and pressed the point that I must be frank. All my hon. friend’s questions—referring to the split rails in Natal, the units, and the wear and tear of the rails—I have previously dealt with, I have, on previous occasions, repeatedly told the House that when the split in the rails occurred the officers were consulted. Let me, however, stress the point which the hon. member does not seem to appreciate, that these defective Belgian rails have not been placed in the track on the Natal line, and also that splitting has occurred in all classes of rails— British, Continental and American included—

I admit that.

The hon. member referred to the matter as if they were the Belgian rails. The reports of the chief civil engineer and of the chief mechanical engineer were, as I have already informed the House, submitted, and, in justice to the consulting engineers, I have felt that the reports should be submitted to them. I have already promised the House—and I repeat—when the reports have been fully considered, the fullest information will be given to the House on all these points. My hon. friend has also asked me a question with regard to the Swiss engineers who built these units, and who are in the country. Let me be quite clear on this point. The Swiss engineers built these units, but the designs were drawn by Messrs. Merz & McLellan. How can my hon. friend say, “ no? ” Does he not know that the designs were drawn by Messrs. Merz & McLellan, the contract was given to Metropolitan-Vickers, and they again gave it out to the Swiss engineers? Who is responsible?

Messrs. Merz & McLellan.

I am sure Messrs. Merz & McLellan will take the full responsibility in that regard. The Swiss engineers came to the country, approached the Administration, and we gave them permission to go over the whole of the line and to examine the split rails and the units. To-day I have received their report, through the general manager, dealing with the whole matter. I have as yet given no consideration to it, and I do not want to commit myself, because I do not know what is in it, but I am prepared to give the House the fullest information. I think I have now dealt with all the points, and ask the House to agree to the third reading.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged the Minister of the Interior from service on the Select Committee on the subject of the Imprint Bill and had appointed Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé in his stead.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) asked a few questions during the debate to which I want to reply. They are in connection with Imperial affairs. He said in the first place—

And he wanted to know what the attitude of my Government was about it. I can only say this, that what he says ought to take place, will, I think, take place. But he will understand that how it will take place, and through whom, are questions about which only the British Government itself, as the Government concerned, can decide. He asks further that expression should be given to the opinion that—

That is in agreement with the view of the Government, and for this reason it has already been agreed that the High Commissioner in the future will have a diplomatic relationship towards the British Government. He said, further—

I want to say that I entirely agree with him on that point. Now that we have received from the last Imperial Conference the acknowledgement by Great Britain of our sovereign national freedom, with full abandonment by the British Government of any claim to control, or superior authority, with the acknowledgment of all rights or privileges, both local and foreign as equal free peoples, it would, in my opinion, be the greatest stupidity if we resolved upon the costly appointment of diplomatic representatives abroad, except there where it is necessary for trade or other reasons of State that such a person should be appointed. The hon. member further spoke generally about our status, and he commenced by the acknowledgment of the independent status of the dominions by the Imperial Conference. I want here to thank him for the compliment he paid me in his speech. He said—

I am particularly pleased to hear that. It was not always so, and I think I am entitled to say here: “ There is nothing that succeeds like success.” Who would have said that it was the same member who, on the 13th November last, only three months earlier, delivered a “ trenchant speech ” to his constituents on the “ independence issue.” in which he challenged me “ to come into the open? ” On that occasion he said, inter alia—

And later in his speech he says—

Now to think that the person who three months ago spoke like that can now get up in the House and give his blessing to the recognition of our sovereign independence by the Imperial Conference, is indeed satisfactory, and must make us all hopeful with regard to other matters of a similar nature which still remain to be settled. It is a pleasing sign to me, because I regard it as a proof that the difference of opinion on matters of this nature is mostly based on prejudice and ignorance. It is clear to me what in November last caused the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) to so dislike the word “ independence.” He then still believed in the bogey which is so often trotted out by his own party, and especially by his leader, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He could therefore, of course, not find it possible to agree that the dominions should be acknowledged by foreign powers as—

And he, of course, had to contest every attempt at getting our sovereign freedom admitted—

Filled with the fear before him, he could not imagine our attitude in relation to the empire as anything else than that of subordination, and he had to regard the empire as a sort of superstate, again like his leader, the hon. member for Standerton. South Africa he of course considered subordinate to that super-State. We can therefore well understand that the hon. member at that time could not believe that we were so “ completely independent ”—

In other words, according to him, it could mean nothing else than that we could not, according to bur status, belong to the empire, and at the same time be a sovereign free people. Of course, that is clear. Of course, with such a conception of the empire, viz., a super-State, the hon. member was quite right. You cannot have an empire which is a super-State, and of which another country is a subordinate part, and still lay claim to that part being free. That is very clear. He was thus quite right when he said in November—

Now I want to point out that it is just here that the Imperial Conference did its great and significant work by acknowledging the status of the dominions. It was also a case with the members of the Imperial Conference of—

Whether you are going to be a member of an empire State of which no subordinate part can have sovereign freedom, or of so many sovereign free States united in voluntary cooperation, or associated as the British commonwealth of nations. Let me say that the Imperial Conference gave a decided and final answer to the question. The Imperial Conference definitely rejected the view of the empire held at the time by the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for South Peninsula, in favour of the existence of so many free sovereign peoples freely united in mutual co-operation towards the rest of the world with a view to mutual benefit. The Imperial Conference, therefore, acted very clearly according to the formula of the hon. member for South Peninsula—

The Imperial Conference disposed of the question of sovereign independence, and by its decision once and for all gave a final and unequivocal decision in favour of sovereign independence. It seems to me that the hon. member has submitted to this decision. I heartily congratulate him, thereon, and I also wish to express my pleasure at the way he has shown in his speech that he fully appreciates and values the good and beneficial results of the decision of the Imperial Conference. I say in all earnestness and honestly, that I congratulate him on it. But he will understand now when I say that I am sorry that he, at the same time, felt himself obliged to detract from the good work of the Imperial Conference. I can quite understand why he did so. The great significance of the declaration of the Imperial Conference is, of course, just as clear to him as to anybody else in, or outside of, the empire. It is clear to him also that the declaration also contains a decision against which it is futile for him or his party to any longer resist. He therefore felt obliged to accept the decision, hut in view of the speech three months before to his constituents, he had now to make it appear as if he had always held that opinion, even from that time. That is why we find the lame remark at the beginning of his speech, where, in view of the declaration of the Imperial Conference, in a depreciatory way he says the following—

I should like actually to be told by the hon. member who are included in the words—

Is it his leader, the hon. member for Standerton, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), or the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) with the Natal members? Who are most of us? I should like to know that. The statement—

would not have sounded so stupid if it had not come from the hon. member or his party. From me, or from the Nationalist party, it would have come quite naturally, because ever since the 7th December, 1912, I have never preached anything else about our status than the doctrine now recognized in the declaration of the Imperial Conference. On the other hand, the South African party, with its leader in the van, has never done anything else but deny and oppose that doctrine. What is more, it is precisely the preaching of that doctrine by us, and by me, and, let me say, the denial of it by the hon. member for Standerton and his colleagues in the Cabinet, which led to the crisis in 1912 by which the South African party ceased for good to exist, i.e., the old South African party. It is due to that, that the hon. member for Standerton sits there to-day, and I here. Otherwise, we should have both sat there or both here.

I am quite content to sit here.

Precisely. Nor did I say that the hon. member was dissatisfied. I only mentioned the cause.

You will not always be sitting there either.

I shall not, nor do I wish to. It has nothing to do with the matter. The whole question is what brought about the split between him and me. It was nothing less than his heresy in connection with the empire question. I call it heresy because the Imperial Conference, if it did anything, has finally killed the idea of the hon. member for Standerton about the empire in 1912. The statement of the hon. member for South Peninsula is therefore deplorable, because if he is right, then practically nothing of any State importance or significance was effected by the declaration of the Imperial Conference. If that is so, if the old feud has not been settled, and if that declaration is so ambiguous that we must take it that it allows the feud of the past (from 1912 to 1926) to continue, then I want to ask my hon. friend to bear in mind what it will mean and must mean to the maintenance of the empire to which he attaches so much value. Let him think of that. I could not imagine anything more damaging to the sentiment within the dominions, not only here in South Africa, but in all the dominions, towards the empire, than if it were said to-day that that declaration of the Imperial Conference has left undecided the whole question whether we belong to an empire-State or not. Fortunately, I am fully convinced that that is not so. The Imperial Conference completely settled that question, and decided against my hon. friend there, and I recommend him to accept it and to put up with it. No, I feel that the hon. member well knows that his denial of the importance of what was done by the Imperial Conference is a mere subterfuge, to save him from the dilemma in which he has been placed by the policy of his party in the past, and by the speech which he made to his constituents three months ago. If anyone were to ask me now what the Imperial Conference had done, what was to be said to its credit, then I must say that it is not difficult to give an answer. In the first place, it made an authoritative declaration about our national status. I repeat that it made an authoratative declaration about our national status. That had never before been done although I find from the records in my office that the hon. member for Standerton in 1921 himself made an attempt to obtain a declaration from the Imperial Conference of that year.

He surrendered.

Yes, that is quite right, because he never brought it up before the Imperial Conference. Before he got so far, he became afraid for some reason or other.

That is not usually his custom.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was also there. Can it be that he restrained him? Is that possible? I accept that he did not do it, but nevertheless I half think that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort knew of the point Why does he say that he made an attempt? And if there is anything which makes me smile and convinces me of the injustice which took place on such occasions and in such debates, then one can find in the records the eloquence with which the hon. member for Standerton debated with himself the desirability and necessity of obtaining such a declaration, and then to read that five years thereafter, on the 18th September, 1926, the same member who was so eloquent went about on the platforms in the country, and eventually went to the town hall of Johannesburg, and there speaking in connection with my statement in Cape Town, that I was going to England to insist there on such a declaration?

What declaration?

The hon. member knows well enough, because he must have read my speech, to refer to it in his speech. But I will repeat what I said. I am not afraid. I said on the 6th September—

But let me return to my friend’s eloquent declaration in 1921, and compare it with what he said in September, 1926, viz.—

I should like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to tell me in what respect the declaration that he wanted to obtain differed from the one I suggested. That would be very interesting. I have my suspicion, but I should very much like the hon. member to tell me. Then he goes further—

And this is the same hon. member who recently went about from platform to platform on his pilgrimage through the country, and what did he do? He said that—

Let me honestly acknowledge that the British empire has been broken up by the declaration of the Imperial Conference, but it is the empire of the hon. member which has been broken up. It is that empire State into which with that group-unity idea he wanted to push us and make us subordinate appendages. That is the empire which he has quite rightly been torn asunder, but how then can the hon. member still come and tell us that he and his party were always protagonists of an independent sovereign South Africa? What does he say more? He says that I have now come back from the Imperial Conference and have been converted to his belief. Really, anything more ridiculous and insincere I can hardly imagine. But, as I said, the first thing that was done at the Imperial Conference was that an authoritative declaration was made about our national status, a thing which has never yet been ventured upon by any previous Imperial Conference. I think that that at least is something which can be placed to the credit of the 1926 Imperial Conference. But, in the second place, the Imperial Conference, in the declaration, in clear language acknowledged our independent sovereign national freedom, and, as I have already said, the empire policy of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is entirely defeated. But in the third place, the declaration at the same time contains the settlement of a weighty political issue for the dominions I have already pointed out that people like the hon. member for Standerton, and his party in this country, were up to that time the protagonists of an authoritative empire to which the dominions, at any rate as far as foreign policy on important points was concerned, would be subordinate. And with that empire idea, the Nationalist party and I would have nothing to do, and we would not meddle with the existence or creation of such an empire. We always persisted that the dominions, by virtue of their self-government, had a claim to complete sovereign independent freedom, and that issue was settled once and for all by the Imperial Conference. As to South Africa, the decision of the Imperial Conference was favourable to the doctrine preached by me, and against that held by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his party. Well, one can easily understand from this the anxiety of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and, I may also say, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to find an escape from their past, by saving—

Let me say that the hon. member for Standerton and his party have completely forgotten their former doctrine. They have quite forgotten the policy the hon. member followed for so many years, and let me say again that I sympathize with them, because to hopelessly defeat a healthy party, such as the South African party was in 1912, on an empire policy, which was subsequently declared to be null and void, is really no small matter. I can therefore well understand that an escape is to-day sought from that position, but let me add that I am very glad that at any rate in this connection we have obtained a united sentiment and conviction, united feeling over a question which in the past gave rise to much that was utterly injurious to our country as well as to our people, and I am convinced that if we want to be a prosperous people and a happy people, then the more we can avoid further disputes on questions relating to our national freedom, the more we are agreed on that, are honestly at one, and convinced that we are a sovereign free people, the more it will do us good as a people. It will also further be the best thing for what hon. members opposite appreciate more than I do, viz., what they call the empire. I say again, appreciate more than I do, because with regard to the empire, I have never yet, since De Wildt, departed from what I stated there, and I could repeat again now what I stated there. The empire is only useful to me as far as it is useful to the people and the country. If it is useful to South Africa, and I think hon. members opposite will be much more prepared to concede this than in 1912—

Just what you can make out of it?

There you have it. I am so glad that the hon. member said that. And I now wish here to point out the unworthy, the so unworthy—I will not say low, but unworthy—way in which men can sometimes—I will not say distort—but wrongly construe which they, if they were less malicious, would not construe in that way. Now I want to ask a question of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

How do you construe your words?

I want to point out how things stand with the hon. member. When he took his pilgrimage through the country to tell the people that he was always right and that we were now converted, he said at one place—whether he was wrongly reported, I cannot say—that I, in 1912 at De Wildt, had said that the British empire could be sucked dry like an orange and then thrown away. Did he say that?

Let me say at once, yes I did say so, but I did not say it in connection with De Wildt. I did not say that the Prime Minister had said it at De Wildt, but I am under the impression that he said it on another occasion.

That is well I have too much respect for the hon. member for Standerton, in spite of our political opposition, to tell him exactly what I thought and think of that statement of his.

Say it.

The hon. member for Standerton has not the least excuse for what he said, and I will tell him, why. I spoke at De Wildt on Saturday, 7th December, 1912.

That was when you said that I was a foreign adventurer.

I spoke there on the 7th December, 1912, and the words I used about the empire, and which were so reported, were—

I discussed the matter there which was topical at the moment, viz., a federal empire which we were to join. Those were my words literally, but on Monday, the 9th December, I was called up on the telephone to attend a meeting at which the hon. member for Standerton was present. I was then accused by the then Prime Minister (Gen. Botha), in the presence of the hon. member for Standerton, of having said that I wanted to suck the British empire like an orange and then throw it away. I said to the Prime Minister that that was not so, but he repeated it a second time. I then again told him that I had not said it. He, however, repeated it a third time, and then I said—

The hon. member for Standerton was present. What happened? The Prime Minister went out to fetch a paper (the “ Volkstem ”), and he read the words which I have just quoted, viz.—

When the hon. member for Standerton can dare to make a statement such as he made on a platform, then I say it is an act of such inconceivable meanness—

Order.

Then I withdraw it, because it is not parliamentary language, but I am prepared to go outside and to say that it—

It will be better if the hon. Minister lets the words rest.

Then I want to put it this way. I want to leave it to the House, to the country and every honest man to say what dignity there is in conduct of that kind. That is precisely what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has this afternoon repeated here.

I asked you to explain what you meant by that statement.

Then I repeat that if South Africa cannot find salvation within the British empire, or if any of the dominions, or even England itself, cannot find its salvation within the British empire, that it is not to its interests to be in it. Then England will not belong to it. Then we will not belong to it, and the dominions will not belong to it.

That is no answer to a straight and fair question—none whatsoever. I want to know what the Prime Minister means by that statement that the empire was useless to South Africa.

Will the hon. member tell me what he actually wants?

I want to know what the Prime Minister means by the statement that the empire is useless to South Africa.

I will say it again, possibly in a different way, viz., that if hon. members there should think that if South Africa and the other dominions remain within an empire which is not to their benefit, then I think everyone will agree that they are wrong. Of course, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort wants me to say what he wants me to say. That is the fairness that we receive from hon. members opposite.

I only want everybody to know on that side of the House and this side what you mean. That is all.

That is the kind of people who preach all the time in South Africa—

Of course, there is only one thing that a man like the hon. member for Fort Beautfort is aiming at, viz., he does not wish to understand the remaining part of South Africa.

I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but his time has expired.

I move that the Prime Minister be allowed to go on.

Then I just want to add this. I did not intend this afternoon to reply to the hon. member for Standerton on his question and statement in the country, and I do not wish to take the matter any further than I have already done. What I said was merely in passing in what I had to say on the speech of the hon. member for South Peninsula. If it were necessary, I could have taken it further this afternoon, but I do not think that this is the occasion for it. The reason is that this is not the time to discuss a constitutional problem like that dealt with by the Imperial Conference. It is my intention during this session to put a motion before the House approving of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference. On that occasion there will be another opportunity of going more fully into the subject matter and the value of the proceedings at the Imperial Conference. I think that it is also necessary that hon. members of this House should have an opportunity of frankly and fully expressing their views on what was done there, and that we should also have a resolution of this House approving or disapproving of what was done there. For this reason I will not go any further this afternoon, because I hope shortly to introduce a motion such as I have indicated.

I am sorry that I am not in a position to congratulate the Prime Minister on the speech he has just made. Nobody would have been more willing than myself to do it and to recognize the good work that he has done, and from this side of the House to pay a tribute to the work he has done, but I am sorry that the Prime Minister has made a speech here this afternoon the tone of which is deplorable. It is unworthy of him as Prime Minister.

We listened to your leader—will you listen to ours? Show courtesy.

We Were all anxious to hear from the Prime Minister about the status of this country. The Imperial Conference has been an occasion of great importance, not only for the empire, but for this country in particular. The Imperial Conference has brought to a conclusion dissensions which have been raging in this country for many years. The Prime Minister went there, not as leader of a party, but as the spokesman of this country. He took part in those proceedings, and he has come back to tell us what has been done. We were anxious to hear from him, in an impartial way, what has been done. Not only we in this House, but the whole country were anxious to hear from him a clear, fair, impartial statement about the work of the Imperial Conference, and the results so far as they concern this country. Instead of that we have heard this afternoon a statement full of partisanship and full of bitterness, a speech which breathed the atmosphere of all these bitter years through which we have passed in this country. As the hon. the Prime Minister was making that speech I was thinking of his concluding words on his arrival in Cape Town, when he said he was sick of all this bickering, and he raised a hope, which I echoed from my heart, that we might steer into a better course in South Africa, and get out of the atmosphere of dissension and bitterness, and look to the things which concern our welfare as a nation, and not merely from a party point of view. The Prime Minister has uttered in the House his first word on the Imperial Conference, and his first word on our status, and I ask him does he think he has done himself justice on this subject; does he think this country, this poor country, deserves to be addressed in the terms in which he has addressed it.

You have misrepresented it.

I shall do my best not to pursue the debate in that spirit. The Prime Minister seems to be under an impression I have done him a grave injustice by what I said some time ago in the country.

You did your best.

I want to be perfectly fair. When we are dealing with big issues let us try to do it in a spirit of fairness and without bitterness. The charge I made against him in reference to that opprobrious reference to the Empire was not made in reference to de Wildt—

You knew where it originated.

Don’t let us recriminate here. I did not make the charge in reference to de Wildt. I was under the impression that the Prime Minister, on a later occasion, made use of that expression. It was under that impression I made the statement in the country. I want to get into a different atmosphere. We shall not get on in this country so long as we hurl these charges against each other. I want to be fair to the Prime Minister and say: If I have done him an injustice, and if he did not use that expression, no one will be more willing to withdraw what was said.

What justification was there for making the statement?

Because I was sincerely under the impression that the Prime Minister had been repeatedly charged with using that expression, and that is why I repeated it. If he says he did not use that expression, no one will be more willing to withdraw it than I am. I want so to get away from that atmosphere. We are busy with a matter which, of all, is the most important to this country. Our status has been a matter of grave difficulty and contention in the past. We want to deal with it on its merits and in a judicial spirit, and if we can make the work of the conference the beginning of a new departure in South Africa, and make it the lever to lift ourselves from the deep ruts of the past, let us do so, and don’t let us pursue the old spooks in the old spirit. I want to approach the work of the conference in that spirit. I don’t want to make charges; I don’t want to refer to any party aspects of this question, but I want to discuss some of the national aspects of the work which was done by the conference. Let me say this. In my opinion this conference has rendered a great service. The report of the conference is a great document, a most valuable document, which we all ought to be very grateful for. I go further. So far as the Prime Minister took part in the work, I think the gratitude of South Africa is due to him for the share he took in that work. I do not think it is fair to the component parts of the empire, or to the other statesmen who took part, that we should represent it as if it was his work alone.

I hope I have never said anything of that kind.

No, the Prime Minister has never said so.

Then why suggest it?

It has been repeatedly suggested and stated. It is unfair. I think this conference has done important work, and work for which we have every reason to be grateful. Let us be clear about what it is. Do not let us misrepresent the work or exaggerate it, let us view it in the proper light, because, if we misrepresent this work—and the result which has been achieved—and exaggerate it, there is sure to be a reaction afterwards. The work is good enough to stand on its own merits. It need not be misrepresented or exaggerated. The Prime Minister was, perhaps unconsciously, in his statement, misrepresenting the work of the conference. Let me mention two cases. My hon. friend, the member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin) asked months ago—

As far as this report is concerned, the word “ independence ” is carefully avoided. The question addressed by the hon. member for Peninsula (South) to the Prime Minister is not, in direct terms, answered in this report.

Do you mean the declaration does not also mean we are independent?

I will come to the declaration just now. I do not want the Prime Minister to say anything that might have a tendency to misrepresent what took place. It is a significant fact that all through this document, which defines our status, the word “ independence,” over which we have fought a battle royal in South Africa for all these years, is carefully avoided. There was more sense in the question addressed to the Prime Minister by my hon. friend than the Prime Minister is willing to admit.