Under the Act passed last year imposing a poll tax, power is given for the summary arrest of natives who do not pay the tax. It is not always easy to distinguish as to who is a native and who is a coloured man, and it has been brought to my notice that coloured men have been arrested. Under the Act the onus lies upon the accused of proving that they are not natives. That often takes some time. The accused person is detained, and he has to prove that he is a coloured man, but in the meantime he has lost his employment, which is a distinct hardship on the man. I have had a talk with Col. Truter on the matter, and made a suggestion to him that there is an organization called the African People’s Organization which is prepared to undertake that these accused men would be available when required, and that they should be allowed out under the circumstances. The Minister will understand that it is not always easy for men of that class to obtain bail. I should be glad if the Minister could deal with the matter.

When I was speaking on Friday I made use of a carelessly worded phrase which has apparently hurt the feelings of my hon. friend the member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). I have already endeavoured to extend to him my regrets, but that does not satisfy me, because there may be other members of this House who may have placed the same construction upon that phrase which he did, and I wish here to state frankly and freely that had any such meaning occurred to me as being applicable to the words I used, I would never have used that expression. I may have my differences of opinion with the Labour party, and this may necessitate the taking off of the gloves at times, but hitting below the belt has never been part of my training. Now I was dealing on Friday night with the increase of crime in Natal, a remarkable increase as indicated by the official figures which are before this House, and I was comparing these figures, which show that with a population in Great Britain of 38,000,000 there is almost an equivalent number of murders and attempted murders in Natal as you find annually in Great Britain. A very serious position has arisen there because of the number of crimes in which no conviction is obtained. In Natal the proportion is something over 19 per cent. of crimes, for which no convictions are secured. I have endeavoured to impress upon the Minister ever since he has been in office that in dealing with the natives in Natal you must have officials who come into daily contact with them, and who are possessed of a full knowledge of their language and of their customs. Your magistrates must be men of that knowledge and training. Your police officers and inspectors must all be men who thoroughly understand the native character. That has been the system on which the government of Natal has been built up and carried on from time immemorial, the result being that the Government has always been kept fully informed of native opinion and native feeling from time to time. To-day we have completely lost touch with native opinion there. Unless the Minister is prepared to reconsider his policy and is willing to allow Natal youths to enter the public service for the purpose of being employed in those departments where they come into contact with natives, so long will you continue to be badly informed as to what is going on. I hope the Minister even at this late hour, and in view of the anxiety which is felt in Natal at the present moment, will see that a re-establishment is undertaken with as little delay as possible. There is another matter to which attention could be given, and that is the greater use of police dogs. I notice that others besides ourselves have a high opinion of the value of police dogs. Last year there was an epidemic, as the result of which 15 police dogs died, and when a post mortem was held it was found that these dogs had died of poison. I hope the Minister will introduce some system which will bring the Government into close touch with native opinion, and that we regain that touch and influence which for a time we certainly have lost.

Last week I asked the Minister for an explanation with regard to certain law suits. I referred particularly to the one which appears on page 121 of the Auditor-General’s report, the case of Strauss. The Government stepped in to assist this man Strauss.

I explained that it was not so. I explained it was a test case in which we assisted.

Well, I say I am not satisfied with that explanation. I say the Government had no right to embark upon that law suit. The facts do not appear to be perfectly clear to hon. members, although they seem to be clear in the Auditor-General’s report. This man was sued by two ex-officials who conceived the idea that they had a right of action against Mr. Strauss. The Government on the contrary crept in as a sort of co-defendant and defended the case. What the Auditor-General says is—

I can find no justification whatever for this extraordinary liberality. That is my point. Here we have the Government embarking upon this kind of thing, defending cases in which in my humble opinion they are not the least concerned. If these officials did a wrong thing it was for the Government to prosecute, but instead they stepped in as a co-defendant. Then I asked the Minister if he would kindly tell us something about this “paper keepers” business. Apparently they are two new officials in the department called paper keepers. I wanted to know exactly what paper keepers are, what the necessity was for their appointment, and why the country should be put to this new expense, and I could get no satisfaction. I am therefore returning to the matter. We are perfectly entitled to, and should have the fullest possible explanation of this. I would not go so far as to suggest that it is another case of jobs for pals—far be it from me to say anything so unkind, but there it is. Here is a new office, and when a new office has been created I think this committee and the House are entitled to the fullest possible explanation. Then I would like to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to inform us what action the Government is taking in connection with the new police courts at Johannesburg. He knows they have been agitating, and rightly agitating for a long time for a new police court there. I hope he has placed on the Estimates a sum sufficient to make a beginning.

I cannot put money on the Estimates.

I next want to deal with a matter I raised last year, and that is what was said by the magistrate, Mr. Lavoipierre, concerning cases of Europeans and natives, and the extraordinary delay. The Minister answered that he had never seen the newspaper report, and he would like further information on this subject. I waited awhile and then I asked him whether he would lay a report on the Table of the House. He replied that he intended having an exhaustive inquiry made into the whole question, and that he would appoint officials to go into the matter. Not long after he laid on the Table a report. This is my complaint: that when a report is laid on the Table the hon. member concerned should, as a matter of courtesy, have his attention called to the fact.

I never asked for information.

I think that the Minister will agree that when a paper is laid on the Table in consonance with a request or at the desire of an hon. member, he might draw that hon. member’s attention to the fact. On the 16th February this year he replied to me that a report had been laid on the Table on the 27th April last year.

I want to deal with a matter about which there is very strong feeling in the country, viz., the attendance of young children at the courts of justice. The scenes they witness there are not desirable when immoral cases or cases of a sensational kind come up. Yet we find that the courts are at such times full to excess including also a large number of young children. This is a matter which has been dealt with by a number of bodies and women’s societies, and resolutions have been passed. It has even been requested that stronger legislation should be passed to prevent it. I think we all deplore to-day that there is such an amount of publicity in our country with regard to such cases. The press is possibly responsible for it, but that is their matter. We, however, feel concerned when the courts are filled with young boys and girls and immoral cases or sensational theft cases are being heard. I made a study in America of the children and women’s courts. It was particularly interesting to me and I also had a long talk with a woman judge in the women’s section. She told me that the rush of people since the starting of the women’s section was so great that it practically prevented her getting on with her work. The public showed an excessive interest in women’s cases, and the concourse was ultimately greater than that to the bioscopes. There was nothing left but to hold the court with closed doors so that only relatives and witnesses could be present when a girl or woman was tried. I myself had great difficulty to get in and I only managed it because I had a letter from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) the then Minister of the Interior. Attending a court like that was of course a good experience for me. Then I also saw the children’s courts. There the same rush of people took place so that the authorities eventually had to take the same course as in the case of the women’s courts. All the judges said that they not only found that the work was better done when the cases were tried in camera, but that it also had a good effect on the accused because they considered themselves less as heroes than would otherwise be the case. I think we can agree that when a person is tried in a case of a sensational kind and the people flock to hear it the accused considers himself a kind of hero, especially in the case where a young fellow has committed a sensational theft. With the view of not giving such persons an exaggerated feeling of their own value it was decided to hear the cases in camera and we can also do so. The woman-judge told me that women who appear in public are often impudent and perverse so that nothing can be done with them. If, however, there is no one to listen then it only takes a few minutes to bring the accused to tears and a better influence is exercised over her than when the case is tried in public. This matter has already been raised by various bodies in our country and representations have been made to the Government, and I should like the Minister now to say whether he is prepared to take steps and if necessary to introduce legislation to prevent young children attending the courts. I should also like to see that cases of a sensational and unsavoury character were more often heard in camera than is to-day the case.

The position of the police on the countryside has already been mentioned by various members and it requires the attention of this House and especially of the Minister of Justice. On the one hand the Minister is appealed to appoint more police. I do not know whether that will do any good. The difficulty is to get hold of the offenders, and it is particularly difficult in the interior where one has to do with stretched-out uninhabited areas. The police, like the farmers, have to battle with great difficulties to arrest criminals. On the other hand the Minister is told to economize. I think that if the Minister of Justice will acquire more police dogs he will find that it is a saving and yet very effective. In the interior experience has shown that the dogs do particularly good work. Then it has been said here that when crime increases the punishments should be made more severe. I think the Minister could reply to that that according to the laws fairly severe punishments can be given, especially in stock theft cases. Our experience is, however, that the trouble must be sought in another direction. Attention has often been drawn to the matter and many letters have appeared in the newspapers. It is that when a magistrate inflicts a severe punishment the punishment is often reviewed by a judge and considerably reduced. The Minister will say that the judge is competent to do so. That is so, but it is discouraging to a magistrate and to the police who have arrested the offender with great trouble. The magistrate hears all the evidence, knows all the circumstances and imposes a severe punishment, but a judge comes and looks through the papers, disapproves of it and lessens the punishment. The magistrate who knows the district and all its circumstances can pass a fitting sentence. I should be glad if something could be done in the matter and am glad to have the opportunity to bring the matter up in the House, and I feel the judges should be careful and not so lightly reduce the punishments inflicted by a magistrate. Regarding another point, I was in communication with the Minister before the last session. Various farmers’ associations passed resolutions with reference to the necessity of a statute dealing with the removal of stock. Years ago a few farmers undertook to draft a Bill on stock theft, but I then at once noticed that such a law would not be sufficient, and that it was also necessary to introduce a Bill on the removal of stock. We then found that it would not be easy to combine them in one Bill, and the then member for Grahamstown, now a judge, undertook to introduce a Bill but unfortunately never got so far. The present Minister of Justice will easily be able to draft such a Bill and have it passed by the House, and I think the countryside will be very grateful to him if he introduced a Bill on removal of stock. It will no longer be possible this session, but I hope the Minister will introduce such a Bill next session whereby he will render a great service to the countryside. He will get all necessary support from members of this House to put an effective law on the statute book.

I should like to make a few remarks on the police vote, and discuss it from the point of view of the farming population. I have listened with interest to the speeches about this matter, especially to that of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), who was a member of the police commission appointed some time ago to investigate the reorganization of the police force. I unfortunately heard nothing about police reorganization with respect to the farmers. I did indeed hear about shortage of police in the suburbs, but if in such a case there is a shortage and a crime is committed then it is the easiest thing in the world to get into touch with the town police by telephone. A farmer, however, may live 30 or 40 miles from the police station, and possibly not even have telephonic communication. I think that this is one of the few departments which allows of no expansion, and I think that this year there has been a reduction on this vote of about £15,000. We find, however, that in all parts of the country there is progress, but unfortunately we find no expansion here, not withstanding the fact that the changed method of farming makes it much more difficult to-day to catch a thief. We go in for great expense in jackal proof fencing, and it makes it easier for the thief to steal. The farmers are commencing to feel desperate and to take the law into their own hands. A few days ago a man was punished for manslaughter at Grahamstown because he took the law into his own hands with someone who was in his camp. Not far from me a farmer in one haul arrested no less than 30 thieves, 26 of them were convicted, and the farmer lost no less than 100 sheep. It is a serious matter. Is it a wonder then that the people go so far as to take the law into their own hands? I do not dispute that £2,500,000 is possibly enough, but is it not possible to so reorganize the whole department that more police are transferred from the towns and villages to the countryside? A few days ago it was remarked that so many police could be found to arrest persons contravening motor regulations, that a man who had contravened the parking regulations on his return found three constables round his motor car. In small villages one also finds that there are enough police to see whether the back light of a motor car is burning. Those are the cases that make the farmer impatient; that there are enough police to catch the orderly man but not enough to catch the criminals. There is another point which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and of the police authorities, viz., that certain police districts are in certain respects too large. In some cases the line between two police districts is drawn 30 or 40 miles from the one police station, but possibly ten miles from the police station in the other district. The police in the latter district do not, however, go into the former, and although a man lives ten or twelve miles from a police station he has to report it to the station in his own police district, which is 30 or 40 miles away from him. I think that in this respect there should be reorganization to make things easier. In the report of the police commission, it is said that the distribution of detectives in the three divisions where stock theft is prevalent is as follows: Transkei, 23 detectives, officers and men; Eastern Cape Province, 54 detectives; and the Free State 32 detectives. The report says—

In all justice to the police I want to say that when we approached them they were prepared to assist us as much as possible. The commissioner and quite a number of deputy-commissioners were present at the last agricultural congress, and they listened attentively to the debate. Nevertheless the position unfortunately remains unsatisfactory. [Time limit.]

During the discussion on this vote there was considerable argument as to the release of prisoners by the Minister of Justice. It is curious that while he has amnestied murderers, embezzlers, and other criminals, he has not thought of amnestying Gen. Marnie Maritz. When I remember how we of the S.A. Party granted wholesale amnesty to our enemies, it is passing strange the Nationalist Government has forgotten to pardon its friends. I do not justify or condone what Maritz did, but the question is not what attitude we on this side of the House take up but the question is why the Nationalist Government, a considerable number of the members of which were amnestied for the same offence for which Maritz was condemned, have refused to grant absolution to their fellow transgressor, and I would like the Minister for Justice to explain his attitude in this particular matter. Looking at the Government benches I see, or rather I would see, if he were in his place, the Minister for Agriculture, who, his best friend would admit, is not in the Cabinet to-day because of his knowledge of agriculture, his administrative abilities, or the charm of his manners, but he has been put into the Cabinet on his military record during the Boer war and during the events of 1914. His record, during the Boer war, was no better, and his record was during 1914, no worse, than that of Gen. Maritz. Why then should one man be made a Minister of the Crown and the other be left in the outer dark. I see the Minister of Lands, the hon. member for Hoopstad (Gen. Conroy), the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Cost), the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen), the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar), all amnestied, and I do not object, but it is the curious psychology of the attitude of the Nationalist Government with regard to Maritz that intrigues one. Maritz did exactly what the amnestied members of the Government did, only he did it better. The Government have put Garnsworthy a convicted murderer, into a Government billet—

I did it.

I am not working up bad blood over these stories, but I do say while we have these men—Gen Muller, for example— whose fault was the same as that of Gen. Maritz put into soft jobs, I cannot understand why one man seems to be made a scapegoat.

Why don’t you put a motion on the Order Paper?

Then I would be curious to see how your side would vote on a motion like that, but I think our side would show more generosity to a friend in distress than you would. I have not seen Maritz for over two years, and I know he would not thank me for intervening in this matter, but I do think the Minister of Justice and the Cabinet owe an explanation in the matter. I am not asking for Maritz to be amnestied, I am asking for an explanation. We are in a different position with regard to Maritz than hon. members on the other side. They say there is honour among thieves. Is there then no sympathy amongst fellow-transgressors on the other side? Having regard to the composition of the Nationalist Government I cannot understand why he was not amnestied. He tried to stand for the provincial council, but the Nationalist ban was on him. I am told that if he stood for Calvinia, the Minister of the Interior would never see that seat again. Is it a case of cause and effect?

He wants to fight Lichtenburg.

He would romp home in Lichtenburg.

I will amnesty him for that purpose then.

It is an extraordinary state of affairs; I am not here to defend Maritz, but I shared many dangers and hardships with him. I went into exile with him, and I know more about him than the Minister for Justice, and I say that whatever his offence, he is a superlatively brave man, and whatever his offence, he is no worse than half-a-dozen members on that side. We have condoned their offences, but it is strange the Nationalist Government has forgotten to condone the offence of Maritz.

made an interjection.

Lipschitz is out of gaol and I believe Jimmy Wilson is to be let out. I think the only thing that is keeping Jimmy Wilson in gaol is the influence of my hon. friend the member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). Maritz is labouring under a stigma. He has lost his citizenship of this country. He has no vote, no status as a citizen, he cannot enter the civil service, he can perform no official function, he is an outcast in is own land, and is being kept an outcast in his own land, paradoxical as it may seem by the hon. gentlemen opposite. I repeat, I do not say that I would amnesty him, but I want information as to the psychology of the matter from the other side of the House. I am putting myself in the position, the very unpleasant position, of being a Nationalist, and if I were a Nationalist— which I never will be—there is no danger of that—but if I were, unfortunately, so misguided as to be a Nationalist I would insist on this man, whose fellow-offenders are sitting in the seats of the mighty over there, being amnestied and his offences being forgotten. [Time limit.]

I want to call the Minister’s attention to a letter which I have just received in connection with trouble at the Bon Accord quarries. Applications for more police there are constantly being made. There are four municipal quarries being worked and many natives walk around who make beer and commit other offences and cause much annoyance to the people in the neighbourhood. I want to blame neither the Minister nor the police for anything that has not been done there, but if one constable more can be appointed to Pretoria (North) Bon Accord can be better policed, and if that occurs, I also hope that a justice of the peace will be appointed there to get rid of the difficulties in connection with the concentration of natives. Then a few words in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) about Gen. Maritz for whom he has suddenly acquired such great sympathy. I think that I know a little of the affair and what surprises me is that the hon. member’s sympathy comes so late. The hon. member had an opportunity and I also think had reason to show that sympathy. I almost think that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) does not know the affair as well as I. I am prepared to submit official documents from which it clearly appears that the appointment which Gen. Maritz obtained was in the first place due to no one else than the then Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

We granted an amnesty to all the others.

So much the more reason for what I am about to say. If the hon. member had realized his guilt a little sooner, when he had an opportunity to allow Maritz to return, then he would not have had the man arrested at the border and put in gaol and convicted. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) that we must allow these things to rest. Let us try to work together in a brotherly way for the development of the country, but the hon. member spoke about things which he apparently understood nothing of, and of the origin of which he knew nothing. The contemptuous way in which the hon. member spoke in this connection was quite out of place. It is just the Government of that time which should be blamed for the position into which Maritz was forced. I am prepared to produce documents as a result of which every man who is prepared to judge justly and impartially will agree with me that Maritz was forced into going into rebellion as he did. I do not wish to be personal, but if the then Government had treated Gen. Maritz with the necessary sympathy and tact then he never would have gone into rebellion as he was forced to do. When he was forced into that position his old comrades in the second war of independence took up the attitude that if one of their old comrades was in difficulties they could not leave him in the lurch. If the late Government had not forced him to it there would have been no rebellion. It, however, is not fitting for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) to want to throw the blame on the present Government. The late Government had every chance of getting him out of the trouble and in the first place of seeing that he never was brought into that trouble. I hope, however, that the Minister will consider that the time has now arrived to grant an amnesty. If there is anybody who can appreciate the merits of Gen. Maritz then I think it is I. I have studied his history and I am firmly convinced that he is a true patriot. I therefore make a real, and not an artificial, appeal to the Minister to again grant him the citizenship to which he is entitled.

I would like to raise a matter of considerable importance especially so far as the farming community is concerned. I refer to the application of the Wage Act to the country districts. Some time back the Minister of Justice made a statement to the press and I would like him to say whether it is correct or not, because we seem to be in a very unfortunate position in regard to this agreement which has been made under the Act. In an interview with the press the Minister of Justice said—

That is exactly the attitude which this side took up all the time, but hon. members opposite tried to prove that the farmers were not excluded from that Act. Now the Minister of Justice, I am glad to see, has said that that Act does not apply to the farmers at all. I am quoting an instance where the Minister of Justice says that in his capacity as Minister that he will not allow any prosecution to take place under these conditions. He makes this remark—

That is a matter of very great importance. I would like to ask the Minister whether under the statement made by him, I, as a farmer, would be entitled, if one of the inspectors of the Minister of Labour came to my farm to inspect works there, to drive him off the farm? He has no right there, according to the Minister of Justice, yet according to the statement of the Minister of Labour, the position is quite different, because at some length he tried to prove that this Act does apply to the farming community.

Where the materials cost more than £400.

The Minister of Labour made a special point of that, stating that as a lover of the farmers he was going to exclude the farmer if the cost of the raw material did not exceed £400. In support of his argument he used these words—

I would like the Minister of Justice to say whether it is correct that he said that he would not allow prosecutions to take place of anybody who contravened this law. Here again we have the Cabinet speaking with two voices. The Minister of Labour denied that the Act excluded the farmers, while the Minister of Justice says that it does, and that he, having powers vested in him, will not allow any prosecutions to be instituted against anybody on a farm. There is, however, the fact that if a farmer employs somebody on a building on a farm he may be sued civilly for any arrear payment which may be made by him to this person. On the other hand, the law lays down certain criminal offences but the Minister says that as Minister of Justice he will not allow any prosecutions. I am glad that the Minister of Justice has taken up this strong attitude in the matter and I appeal to hon. members to see that the whole Act in its application to the farming community is removed, according to the spirit read into it by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is a lawyer of high standing in this country and he reads that the Act does not apply to the farmer, while the Minister of Labour reads that the Act does apply. Where are we? Surely this is a matter upon which the Government should make some definite statement, so that farmers may know whether or not they are punishable under this law. It seems to be a very unfortunate position to have this considerable doubt. I am glad the Minister has taken this strong attitude and has shown the Labour wing of the Government that he is not going to tolerate this position. I would like a full statement from the Minister, and I would like him, when he replies, to tell us whether he speaks on behalf of the Government or merely on behalf of himself.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has made an attack on the police in connection with the placing of names on the voters’ roll. In the Transvaal in past years this work has been done by the police, and my experience in my constituency is that it has actually been quite thoroughly and well done. I do not think there is anyone who can do it better than the police. The police know the wards and the people in the districts, and also those who come in. If the police are given work of that kind we can rely on the lists being well made up, at least if they are not subsequently messed up by the registration officers. I hope the Minister will not attach any importance to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) said, not to allow the work to be done anymore by the police. In connection with what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) said, I fear that if the Minister does not make a clear statement there will be further difficulties later. If the farmers possibly take the word of the Minister and erect buildings costing more than £400, and the Minister of Labour prosecutes them, then the Minister of Justice will get into trouble. I should like him to tell the farmers clearly what the position is.

I wish to support what the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) said about the position regarding police on the countryside. The Minister said that he could not increase the police anymore because the expense would be too great, but I want to call his attention to the fact that the countryside to-day pay proportionately more for the police than the big towns, that the countryside also contributes towards certain services which the police render in the big towns. The Auditor-General, e.g., says here that £7,900 was spent for bands for the police. I think that this is the only body which is maintained by the Government to make music. I do not know why the police particularly should make music. The countryside has not the least benefit from that £7,900. It gets no music for the money. Then I want to refer to the expense of the 120 messengers. The messengers do duty in the courts and ought to come under justice, and be paid through the courts. It is now deducted from the amount which is available for police on the countryside. These are concrete figures which I give to the Minister and from which it appears that in proportion the countryside gets too little service from the police. Then in the municipalities the police are used to direct the street traffic. Why should the countryside run short because the town police must show travellers where to travel? We on the countryside will not shout if services are rendered which are absolutely necessary, but take any village where a court case is in progress. All the police are engaged on the case. There is the messenger, the police give evidence, and the police are employed on the case so that for other services no one in the neighbourhood is available. I want to ask the Minister to investigate whether it is not possible for the officials who are to-day employed in the courts to fall under the court expenses, and that people who are employed there shall not have their salaries deducted from the money available for police on the countryside. Is the countryside to be satisfied with a shortage of police for the sake of a band in the towns, etc.?

I move—

I do so in order to have an opportunity of discussing his policy on the general question of the release of prisoners by him. This is not a new matter; it has come up from time to time during the administration of the Minister. I had hoped that after the sharp and strong manner in which the conduct of the Minister was criticized last year, he would have shown some evidence of a repentant heart, and would have desisted from the evil of his ways, ways which have had the effect of seriously and gravely prejudicing the administration of justice in this country. I asked the Minister on the 22nd February last “how many prisoners has he released during his term of office (a) as part of a general release, and (b) as individual cases?” His reply was that as part of a general release he had during his term of office, released 10,531 prisoners. That is to say, as a general release on the initiative of the Minister, he has released 10,531 prisoners. Then as special releases during the two and a half years from the 1st July, 1924, to the end of December, 1926, there were 463 special releases, and 2,761 releases on the recommendation of the prisons boards, and 13,729 releases under the prison regulations. So that during the two and a half years during which he has been in office there have been something more than 25,000 releases from prison. I make no complaint of what one might call routine releases, that is, where the prison regulations provide for a release on good conduct before the expiration of the sentence; naturally, that is the normal procedure, and the Minister is only following the policy of his predecessor. I make no criticism also of releases on the recommendation of the prisons boards. That also is a routine matter. I shall confine my criticism to the 10,531 releases as part of a general release ordered by the Minister and the 463 special releases which he has ordered during his term of office. He went on, in his reply, to give the corresponding figures of the releases by his predecessor during the preceding two and a half years, which, of course, were very much lower than his own. For instance, the special releases were 372, as against 463 by him, and there were no figures for general release, because a general amnesty of prisoners was not a form of luxury which his predecessor permitted himself to indulge in. We have on previous occasions expressed our views in regard to these releases. No fair criticism can possibly be made of the special releases which signalized the arrival of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in this country. That was a very unique occasion, and it has been customary to signalize cases of that kind by a release of prisoners. But knowing that visit was imminent, some few months earlier the Minister, for some reason which he has never made plain to the House or to the country, opened the prison doors and let prisoners out by the hundred and by the thousand. I do not know whether the Minister has read of the career of a distinguished colleague of his— “Ma” Ferguson—as Governor of the State of Texas. She has been following the same sort of policy; no sooner was a prisoner convicted than “Ma” Ferguson let him out. The administration of justice in Texas was practically brought to a standstill. I do not know whether the Minister has been engaged in friendly rivalry across the water with “Ma” Ferguson, but I have been looking up her figures, and they do not approach those of “Ma” Roos in this country. With all seriousness, I beg to suggest to the Minister that it is the considered opinion of the legal profession, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, that these indiscriminate and wholesale releases have had a very deleterious effect upon the administration of justice in this country. The truth is this—the Minister, when you get him off the public platform, is in private life one of the most amiable of men. He hates to say “no,” and when a case is presented to him he finds it exceedingly difficult to harden his heart and say “no,” although the administration of justice may demand that this particular person should stay in gaol. When I was a small boy, and went to Sunday-school, we used to sing a hymn, “Have courage, my boy, to say ‘no,’” and I would advise the Minister to memorize that hymn. Perhaps with this new system of wireless he could wireless it across to Texas.

We saved £41,000.

That distinguished economist, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), if he carried that argument to its logical conclusion, would abolish prisons altogether, and so save a million pounds or more. I want to deal in particular with some of the cases of prison release which the Minister has effected during the year since we last had the opportunity of discussing his vote. I had hoped that the sharp criticism which was administered would make him more careful in the future, but so far from doing that, it has brought to light even more glaring cases than have ever happened before. I know this was raised last week during my absence, and the Minister’s answer was that he was not one whit worse than his predecessor, but that he was unfortunate in this, that his efforts were attended with more publicity.

That is true.

If so, it is a great compliment to this opposition. Inferentially, it says that we are more vigilant in bringing these matters to light than the present Government were when they sat on these benches. As a matter of fact, it is not true, and the Minister knows it. I defy him, in reply to these criticisms, to mention one single case of release by Mr. de Wet, which is in any way comparable with the cases of Harris, Pottle and Lipschitz.

If you challenge me I will do it.

These are the three cases which occurred during last year. There was the case at Barkly in which there was an act of impersonation at election time, and there the case of the Malmesbury farmer whose name I forget. The Minister was asked to give the facts with regard to Harris. Harris was a trustee of insolvent estates by profession, and it was shown that over a course of years he had embezzled the sum of £9,500. It was shown at the trial that he had gone in for riotous living and extravagance. There were no particular extenuating circumstances which could justify the embezzlement of that money, but it was cold, calculated theft, and the money was spent in extravagance. The creditors did not get one penny of it back. It was as bad a case of embezzlement as you could possibly imagine. He was convicted, and given the exceedingly light sentence of three years. In England he would at the least have got seven years, and the Minister will agree with me on that point. After 116 days the Minister released this man, who was met by his friends in a motor-car outside Pretoria gaol and taken to Johannesburg. I am told that with his wife and a maid he travelled first class by the mail steamer to England. What excuse does the Minister give for having made this unparalleled release? Nothing the Minister has done—and he has done some curious things in his period of office—has amazed and shocked the Transvaal as much as this particular release has done. There is no party feeling in this at all. If a white man, driven by poverty and desperation, sells a bottle of liquor to a coloured person in the Transvaal, he gets six months in gaol. The Minister said that the reason was—

I do not know whether the Minister gave that answer with his tongue in his cheek. I now come to the case of Pottle, who was an Englishman and a farmer, and lived apparently on bad terms with his neighbours. Possibly he was subjected to some form of persecution. He shot one of his neighbours, was found guilty by a judge sitting without a jury, and given the fairly lenient sentence of four years’ imprisonment. After serving 119 days of his sentence he was released. It is the new South Africanism, I suppose. A person from oversea can come and commit a serious offence—embezzlement or homicide—and, because he is from overseas, he may expect to be released, because of his “loss of status” and “losing the benefit of residing in this country,” but a South African, if we follow the Minister’s answer to its logical conclusion, must serve the full term. Shortly after that a curious case happened. I am sorry I do not see the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) here, because he would probably be interested. Another “vreemde fortuinsoeker” (a foreign adventurer) came to Johannesburg, initiated a course of swindling and robbery, and fled to Australia. I am referring to the man known as Jimmie Wilson. The Minister went to the expense—and it must have been very considerable —of having this man extradited from Australia, and one of our detectives was sent over to fetch him. He was tried on a charge of swindling a number of people, and amongst others whom he robbed was the hon. member for North East Rand. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and, as far as I know, he is still in gaol. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) put this question to the Minister—

I ask the committee to listen to the ingenuous reply of the Minister—

1. (1) I am informed that Wilson arrived in this country in April, 1925.
2. (2) No application has been made for remission in this case. If and when application is made, the papers will be perused and fully considered, and such recommendation made to the Governor-General as may seem meet.

Apparently, if you have friends outside to make an application for you, it is one thing.

You can make an application from inside. It is all sent to me.

The Minister went on to say in his reply—

If a man comes from overseas, send him overseas to avoid the expense of keeping him in prison; but here you have gone to the expense of bringing a man from Australia, and the Minister says—

That is the principle of making it personal to the man himself. Advocate Morris made the application on behalf of Harris, and Colonel Rowland, the chairman of the B.E.S.L., on behalf of Pottle. The star turn of the Minister recently in the matter of releases is this man Lipschitz, who was caught in the act— he was charged with illicit gold buying—and he got nine months and I think a fine of £100, and Schaffer, his accomplice, was sentenced to six months. Lipschitz was a jeweller in a big way of business. If there is one offence one cannot afford to treat with leniency it is the illicit buying of gold, more than you can do so with regard to the illicit buying of diamonds on the diggings. The mines are robbed largely of gold, and some outlet has to be found for the stolen gold. The man who buys illicitly knows the gold is stolen, just as a man who buys a diamond illicitly knows it is stolen. He was told by the judge who sentenced him that there were no mitigating features at all, which was proved by the report of the police, and that he had been carrying it on as a regular business. The Minister comes along after a certain time and lets him out. I have no doubt why the Minister let him out—simply because the wife and family of the accused sat on the Minister’s doorstep, and would not take “No” for an answer. I will remind the Minister of that Sunday school hymn again. Curiously, his tool and accomplice, Schaffer, is still in gaol. I say this with all gravity to the Minister and the committee, that occurrences like this have shaken our confidence in the administration of justice in this country. I know that judges and magistrates have said again and again—

Judges or magistrates have no right to say this.

I withdraw the word “judges,” but certainly magistrates to my certain knowledge have. It is only human nature. If you are put in a judicial position to punish crime, and you know there is someone in higher authority at Pretoria to release those you have sentenced, human nature being what it is, we will arrive at a state of affairs such as there was in Texas, and they will refuse to impose sentences. These cases destroy the confidence the public have, and the confidence they have the right to feel, in the administration of justice in this country. I am not pleading for savage sentences and savage treatment of crime but it is an essential of good government that crime should be punished and that punishment should follow the crime. The criminal should know that fair punishment will follow his misdeeds. If they get the impression that punishment will not follow a sentence, the greatest harm will be done. As reported, the Minister is supposed to have given as a justification for the release of Lipschitz—

And Pretoria.

The Minister went on to say that these jewellers are making a practice of buying gold illicitly, and therefore—

I did not say that.

What did the Minister say? In what way did he justify the release of Lipschitz? I would have thought that an ordinary person, but not one with the extraordinary mentality of the Minister of Justice in these matters, would have said: “The police tell me that a large number of jewellers in Johannesburg and Pretoria buy gold illicitly and as soon as I catch one of them I will make an example of him.” But the Minister says, “As soon as I catch one I will get him go, as a lot of others ought to be in gaol with him.” Imagine the Minister of Justice defending his action on grounds of that sort! The excuse given by the Minister—which is hotly denied by the jewellers—the fact that this crime is rampant, is all the more reason when you discover one of the perpetrators for keeping him in gaol for the whole length of his sentence. With all the Minister’s excellent qualities he is probably the worst Minister of Justice we have ever had in this country, and his conduct in releasing prisoners is having the very worst possible effect on the administration of justice. I hope he will not find a lot more Harrises, Pottles and Lipschitzes to release, and that he will not have another desire to have a general gaol delivery.

I wish to refer to the building agreement as affecting the farmers. I will first call attention to the explanation and defence of the extension of the application of the Industrial Conciliation Act which was made by the Minister of Labour in a speech on a motion introduced by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). That is reported in column 2614 of Hansard for April 13 last, and the Minister of Labour then stated—

On April 8, as reported in column 2398 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Labour whether he intended to remove rural areas from the operation of wage determinations and conditions of labour in the building trade under the Industrial Conciliation Act. In the course of his reply the Minister said that when the agreement comes up for renewal in February, the position of the rural areas will certainly be given the fullest consideration, and as far as the department is able to do so, full effect will be given to the proviso in Section 1 of the Act, which states that the Act shall not apply to any employment in agriculture or any farming industry. The Minister of Labour contends that he is acting on the advice of the law advisers that the Industrial Conciliation Act applies to the erection of buildings on farms. At a later date the Minister of Justice said that he regarded Section 1 of the Act as not applying to operations ordinarily carried on farms, such as the dwelling houses, stables, etc., which are essential to farms, and that the erection of such buildings must be regarded as being outside the scope of the Act. Where do we stand? At present we are between the devil and the deep, blue sea. Apparently if a farmer erects a building, the cost of the material of which exceeds £400, he can be summoned if he has not paid the man employed on the work the standard building wages. I ask the Minister of Justice to clear up the position and if the Minister of Labour is correct in his view of the position, the Government should bring in an amending Bill so as to exclude the farming districts from the operation of the Act. There are two local matters I want to deal with. One regards the state of the police quarters in Kokstad erected many years ago for the C.M.R. They are in an absolutely uninhabitable state; the rain comes through the roof, the floors are rotten, the windowpanes are broken—in short they are not fit to use as dog kennels, and are in such a state that portions of them are falling down. Only two rooms are now being used as barracks. The fact that the police have no barracks is having a detrimental effect on the morale of the force in Kokstad and is leading them into paths that should be avoided. Cases have occurred where there has been over indulgence in liquor. This is largely due to the fact that there are no police quarters. Men are forced to live in boarding houses, hotels and other places, and instead of having their own recreation rooms, their leisure time is sometimes spent in the bars. This state of affairs is not fair to the men themselves. The position of married men is even worse and it is wrong, very wrong, that Kokstad, the principal town in the Transkei, should be without habitable police quarters. We don’t want expensive buildings—a suitable building could be erected for £1,000 by making use of the material on the spot. The position really does require looking into.

As to the question raised by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), a considerable number of our police barracks are not up to requirements, and we have endeavoured to place money on the loan estimates to rectify this state of affairs. Unfortunately, people in the Transvaal do a lot of harm by talking about the Government raising loans, and if the hon. member could get these estimable gentlemen to hold their tongues on the subject, we could probably do more along the line indicated by him.

You have £40,000.

It will be expended to the best advantage, but I cannot say that spending it to the best advantage would mean spending it at Kokstad, although we will take that into account. Hon. members have referred to my statement regarding the working of the Industrial Conciliation Act as affecting building operations on farms. There are differences of opinion as to the interpretation of section 1, which is rather an ambiguous one. My own impression is that building operations ancillary to farming may be brought in, but there are a number of lawyers who have given a different interpretation to that clause. In consequence, I have made it clear that, as far as my department is concerned, there will be no prosecutions in connection with building operations on farms. Personally, I incline to the view that it would be better if an amending Bill were brought in to interpret section 1 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. That is a matter we shall have to consider, but it has not yet been dealt with by the Cabinet. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) spoke about prison labour being given free for road building purposes in the northern provinces, but not in the Cape. I have no objection to making the system the same right through, so that prison labour may be obtained by private people paying the expenses of the warders, and so on, and in this way we may be able to give more assistance to the provincial councils. We will try to draw up a scheme on those lines, and put it into operation throughout the country. There were technical difficulties which the Director of Prisons had with regard to it when the work was some distance away from the gaol, but I think we might surmount those difficulties. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) said if you have not enough money for the police, take some away from the Defence Department and use it for the police. I have not the power to do that. It is not so much the position that we have not enough money, but that I think the country should not pay more than £2,500,000, and therefore we must endeavour to cut our clothes according to that cloth. We must leave the technical officers to make the best of it. I am glad there has been a complaint in the House about motorcars standing in the streets. It really is a question as to whether or not we should just allow the police to deal with moving traffic, and not worry about those standing about the streets. The public of Cape Town will not take notice of the regulations, and we have had a tremendous amount of trouble in Cape Town. You would think, with these arrow streets, the people would tumble over themselves to alter this state of affairs, but not only will they not take notice, but they have set a bad example, as the mother city, to the rest of South Africa. Perhaps the mother is getting too aged. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) referred to a pamphlet by Mr. Justice Tatham with regard to natives not understanding the white man’s laws. Well, the white men themselves have a great deal of difficulty in understanding the laws. They, like the natives, are trained in the gaols, those schools of crime as you call them, and, like the natives, are worse men when they come out. I stated last year that I regarded it as an extremely dangerous measure to put men guilty of a first offence, in gaol, and last year I said something with regard to labour colonies. We are going to make an endeavour to have labour colonies in this country, and it might be with regard to first offenders and small offences that we can deal with them in labour colonies. In gaol the natives join gangs, the Ninevite gangs, and in Natal we found that every native was enrolled in one of two rival gangs, and that the same procedure was followed in every gaol throughout the country. It is a matter we shall have to deal with later on. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) spoke about undetected crime in Natal and other parts. Undetected crime to-day in the Union is less than it was before Union, and the position is very favourable. Take the Cape district. The amount of undetected crime is less than it was before Union, and the position is satisfactory. I believe I can say, as far as the C.I.D. is concerned, it is being built up into a stronger and more potent weapon every year, and they suffer from the same complaint, they are not overstaffed. The question of police dogs has been raised. We are doing our best to turn out police dogs, but they require a long training, and not every man can deal with them. Here and there you have a man in the police force who can deal with the dogs. We have, therefore, two difficult factors in the training of dogs and of getting the right man to look after them in different parts of the country when they are trained. The Police Department is alive to the importance of this matter, and we shall extend it as rapidly as possible. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) came back to the Strauss case. I made it clear no blame attached to me. We defended the action on the instructions of the Minister of Finance.

I am not blaming you, I blame the Government.

Why attack me then?

It is your vote.

It was a case which was in the public interest. You had people who acquired information whilst in the Pension Office, and who were utilizing this information to extract commissions from a large number of persons receiving pensions.

Why didn’t you prosecute?

We should prosecute with pleasure, but it is not a criminal offence. I thought it was right to defend that action on account of the special position these men held in the department. I believe the Department of Finance gave instructions rightly. In the end judgment went against us, but I believe there were points in the case which might easily have led to judgment going the other way. The hon. member knows there are cases which are obviously good cases on the surface, but they fall at a later stage. With regard to the paper-keeper, it is a term I do not like. It is a term imposed on my hon. friend and myself by the Public Service Commission. They have a man who is a general messenger or a junior clerk, but they do not want to call him either of these terms, so they call him a paper-keeper. It would have been better if the Public Service Commission had selected one or the other name.

Can I suggest a name?

Yes.

The keeper of the conscience.

But you cannot have a junior clerk to keep your conscience. You must have a senior man for that.

†*The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) spoke about the presence during court cases of minor children, and enlarged upon the splendid children’s courts which he had seen in America. I just want to refer the hon. member to the children’s court that we have in Johannesburg. If he had seen that—I should think he has not—he would have seen that we have something in our own country of that kind and something which need not take second place to what he saw in America. The system is also followed there of having the sittings in camera, and we are going to try to extend that system in South Africa.

I meant to refer to other places where it is not so.

Yes, but the intention exists to establish shortly in Cape Town a similar children’s court, and also in other large centres. But then I am quite at one with what he said in connection with the attendance in law courts by young children. To-day the courts themselves have the fullest powers to prevent this and the Department of Justice has issued a circular to magistrates in connection with complaints in the matter and to point out that children should as much as possible be kept out of the courts. I believe this will be done, but I also think that it is further probably necessary to introduce legislation in connection with this point and many others. In England recently, e.g., an Act was passed in connection with the reporting of divorce cases. Only certain facts may be reported and in this connection I refer to the “Castle” case which was before the court in Johannesburg and about which full details were published in the newspapers. They broke all the Johannesburg records in one day, and sold more newspapers than on any other day except the day of the visit of the Prince of Wales. If one read the evidence it was the most insipid possible, and I cannot understand how anybody can read pages and pages of such nonsense. There are still people who read it, and it will be wise of us to prohibit its publication. We can pass a law like that in England. There are also other kinds of publicity. Take, e.g., the case of the man “Goosen.” Everything is fully described—how he shot at the police—and the result was, according to my information, that young boys would read nothing else but the adventures of Goosen. This is all in close connection with what the hon. member for Ladybrand proposed. In a certain measure we can act under the existing law, but it will also be necessary to introduce new legislation. I agree with what the hon. member said. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) he himself pointed out the objections to the matter he raised, viz., the severe punishments inflicted by the magistrates which are then reviewed by the Supreme Court. The cases he speaks of are chiefly stock theft, and as I said it is better in such cases to go to work by means of lashes and spare diet than by way of long imprisonment. Various hon. members have spoken about the need of more police, but I think that I have replied sufficiently on that to show what the position is. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) pointed out that the registration of voters by the police had answered well. I must say that we try to put as little extra-departmental work as possible on the shoulders of the police, but where possible it will be done. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) wants less pleasure in the world than we have to-day. We have the police band of which we are proud, but the hon. member is so opposed to pleasure that he does not want the orchestra. Even the defence force has no orchestra, and why should the only one be abolished? As long as I am Minister I will not do so, and I hope that my successor will not do so either.

†Coming to the question raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I consider that every Government must use its discretion in connection with the releasing of prisoners and that there is not much value in attacking one release or attacking another release. I only just want to show what the position is. I want to give one example that took place in the past administration and I may say that it is not as a result of looking through the files of the department. My attention was drawn to this case by a letter which I received from outside. It is the case of a man who was charged with buying certain rough and uncut diamonds from one Richter, an employee of the Premier Mine, on the 21st July, 1919. He had several previous convictions, some of some importance, and he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment with hard labour, and a fine of £300 or 12 months. The fine was paid. These previous convictions were: Drink, six months; theft, eighteen months. After his conviction it was decided that he should be deported from the Union when he came out of prison. It was asked for in November, 1919 and it was deemed desirable in December, 1919, that he should be deported from the Union. We have a police report dated November 22nd, 1920. That report was necessary in connection with a petition that was lodged for the release of this man from gaol. We will call him M.H. The report stated that on the 11th July, 1919, the prisoner was tested and that he purchased per medium of a European trap 12.75 carats of diamonds for the sum of £25. On the 22nd July he purchased 35 carats of trap diamonds for £50. He was arrested and searched and the trap diamonds were discovered on him. He was subsequently sentenced. The report goes on to say that the accused cultivated the acquaintance and friendship of men employed in the pulsator of the Premier Mining Company and that he carried on his operations through them. The prisoner was a dealer in cattle and the management of the company dealt extensively with him in cattle. The report added—

On 24th December, 1920, a report was made by Sir Thomas Watt, who signs for the Minister of Justice, who was probably away at the time. In this report it is stated that M.H.’s case was considered by His Excellency less than three months ago, when no remission of sentence could be granted. The prisoner’s offence was a serious one, the penalty imposed was by no means severe, and he (Sir Thomas Watt) was unable to find any reason for special consideration in this case and he was, therefore, unable to recommend His Excellency to grant any remission of sentence. On 29th December, that is conveyed to the Secretary to the Prime Minister, and on the 4th January, 1921, it is conveyed to the prisoner himself in the gaol. On 4th February, 1921, a month after the decision had been conveyed to the prisoner, there is another report signed by the present leader of the Opposition, J. C. Smuts, in which reference is made to the report dated 24th December, 1920, in regard to this man’s case. The report goes on to state—

He was released. At that point nobody seems to have worried about the deportation order and about seven or eight months later, that is on 13th September, 1921, a letter is sent by the Commissioner of Police, Col. Truter, in which he states that this man was specially released from prison on 5th February last, immediately before the elections. He added—

On 5th October, 1921, a letter is sent by the Secretary for the Interior as follows—

Then on the 1st November, 1921, is a letter stating that, in view this convict’s long residence in the Union, the Minister of the Interior had decided that his deportation should not be proceeded with. Now what is that “long residence” which is spoken of in this letter? He was due for deportation when he was put into prison. Was it because he had been in prison 18 months that this man was not to be deported?

How long had he been resident in the Union before the conviction?

He had been resident in the Union for a long time. My point is this, that the deportation order was issued, in spite of his residence in the Union, before he went to gaol. The only reference to his long residence is after he comes out of prison, and the increasing residence was only his prison residence. Therefore, if the deportation order was rightly issued at the time he went into prison it seems to me that his prison residence should not have rooted and anchored him in South Africa. That is a thing I do not understand. It seems to me to be illogical.

May I see those papers?

Certainly. The hon. member will probably find they are even worse than I represented them when he goes through them.

The man would have been released in any case in a month or two under the prison regulations.

No, he would not have been released until a year later. There were previous convictions. You will find the address of a brother of his in those papers which probably explains the whole riddle. I would not have given the case but for the fact that I was challenged by the hon. member. I showed how easy it was to give a case? Surely these challenges are meant to be accepted? Now we will give the difference. Here is a man with two previous convictions whose qualification for deportation was being cancelled by his long life in gaol. As far as both Pottle and Harris are concerned this country is rid of them. That fact we cannot get away from, and the country is not rid of this man. I am certain that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) if he goes through those papers will feel very strongly on that point. The position with regard to the case of Pottle and Harris is this: in both cases it was a first offence. In both cases it is highly unlikely that the conduct of these men would be followed by any conduct of the same description. When you take into account the position that both men occupied you would find that the comparatively light imprisonment together with their deportation would be a substantial punishment. With regard to the case of Lipschitz—and there is no question of principle in these matters; every matter must be considered on its own basis— the position is this, that he got nine months’ imprisonment and a fine, which was paid. He would have his quarter off because this is also a case of a first offence. His imprisonment would, therefore, have been something between six and seven months. I recommended his release when he had served a term of four months, coupled with the condition that for another three months he should be taken away from the Rand area. I believe, too, that in this case also you will find that this man on account of the position he occupied has had his lesson, and you will not be troubled by him any longer. The only reason why I referred to the way in which some jewellers in Pretoria and Johannesburg had carried on was because when you have punished substantially the man who has been captured you cannot leave out of consideration the fact that other men are indulging in the same kind of crime. This punishment in the circumstances was a very substantial punishment indeed. What difference does it make as to four months’ or six months’ imprisonment? For some people a sentence of two months would be a greater punishment than in the case of another man upon whom you inflict a sentence of two years. I believe that case has caused, and will cause, the jewellers who have offended in the past, to pause, and we will probably have much less of this illicit gold traffic there than we have had in the past.

It is the fact of your releasing him before the expiry of his term.

According to the figures of my predecessor, 372 were released after serving a considerable portion of time, and in my case there were 463. I do not see any substantial difference.

“Your object all sublime you will achieve in time, and make the punishment fit the crime.”

I think I have achieved it already, because I do not think that any releases of this kind have encouraged crime in this country. I have also found that a large number of men standing under deportation orders had served a large part of the sentence, and I recommended their release to enable them to be deported at once. I think that is also a very useful thing to do.

Could I see the police commissioner’s report in Lipschitz’s case?

No, you will have to wait until you are Minister of Justice, just like I have waited. I waited a long time before I could see anything. Then the hon. member rather turned round and said: “Why is Schaffer not released?” There is a substantial difference there, too. One of the factors you have to take into account to a small extent is the question of the man who has a family and the man who has not a family. Schaffer is a man who is unmarried, and has no one dependant upon him in any way whatever. That is also a substantial point a Minister of Justice always takes into account. Also Schaffer made his position worse by giving evidence in favour of Lipschitz. Lipschitz’s case, if one reads through the evidence, is not such a certain case as the hon. member thinks. It was made more difficult by Schaffer giving evidence that he went into the shop and, without the other having any knowledge of him, threw this gold amalgam into a flower pot.

Did Lipschitz give evidence in his own case?

Yes, I believe that is so. The hon. member says he gave evidence that he was guilty and that Lipschitz was innocent. He has been in prison for a certain length of time, and it is a matter I will take into consideration at a later stage as to whether he has had sufficient punishment. It may be that Schaffer is the man who is dealing with various jewellers, and it may be that so far from Schaffer being a person less blameworthy than Lipschitz he may be more blameworthy. That is also a matter I will have to inquire into when the proper time comes. In every one of these cases it is a case of a first conviction. In the case he has, it is the third. In the case where we wanted to get rid of him there were hopes that we could get rid of him, but he had acquired the right of residence in South Africa by his residence in gaol, and that has never been taken away from him. That is the difference between these cases. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If any of these three men offend again, that will be the important stage. Where hon. members and the press do a considerable amount of damage is that they have put the idea in the minds of everybody who goes to prison that he must make an application. The unfortunate part of it is that the Minister of Justice cannot allow more than 1 per cent. There are a very large number of applications. I am surprised they have not further increased because of these debates. In most of these cases one has to steel his heart against the application which is made. I do admit at once one thing the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said —it is so with all of us. One feels the fact of people being in prison to a very great extent indeed, and by straining things to a certain extent, where you can give remission, and you feel that the interests of the State will not suffer, one is, perhaps, too prone to give remission—I admit that. I do not think I shall be alone in that, and all people who occupy my position will be subject to the same temptation. My hon. friend may be more hardhearted but I do not think he will be much more hard-hearted.

You have broken the record.

I hope the Transvaal will break the record at a later stage—but not in prison releases.

What is the record you hope the Transvaal will break?

That will be at the next election. I hope hon. members will not go on to ask for police stations being built at various places.

I challenged the Minister to bring a case paralleled by the previous Minister of Justice to the case of Harris and Pottle. What does the Minister trot out as his trump card?

Not a trump card.

If it is not a trump, let the Minister produce them. If it is a trump it is a low one. This man, after getting two and a half years and a fine of £300, after paying the fine served 18 months and was released. His age was 40 years, and he has been in South Africa since 1893, that is, he came as a boy of about 10. The prison report states that the convict’s conduct and industry have been perfect. His number of gaol imprisonments has been nil, his number of marks earned for his conduct in prison 1,113, and the number of marks forfeited nil, so you have this man behaving in exemplary fashion during 18 months.

The worst criminals are always the most exemplary in gaol.

No doubt. If the Minister tells me the case he mentioned is in any way comparable with the present one, I am sorry for his trump card.

I thought you would be.

I am. We know the facts in Harris’ and Pottle’s cases. About the other case we do not know, because no member of the Opposition raised it in 1921 as we are raising the matter now in regard to this particular release. I have asked the Minister to give the police report in the cases of Harris, Pottle and Lipschitz. His reply to the challenge is that I have to wait until the Greek Kalends. I ask, is that fair debating and a fair way of putting it—to read a police report, and by inference, criticize the Minister five years ago, who was never criticized when he was in office?

You challenged me.

When I asked him for the police report in the cases of Harris, Pottle and Lipschitz what did he do? The answer is a refusal, so I leave the committee to draw its own conclusions. The Minister’s much vaunted trump card has turned out to be a dud. The Minister tried to make out in the most ingenuous and almost childlike fashion that the reason the deportation was not carried out was because the man was in gaol for two years. What stuff and nonsense! The recommendation for his deportation was made at the time of his conviction, in 1919.

He was 26 when they said you must deport, and when he was 28 they said you must not deport.

It was quite competent to take into review the decision to deport arrived at at that time.

After the election.

This decision was arrived at a long while after. The election had nothing whatever to do with it. The Minister has signally failed to reply to a certain portion of my criticisms, and I will put them again.

No policy is laid down.

Having laid down that policy, I should like to know what influences were brought to bear on him in the ease of Wilson.

None.

So no application had been made by him for his release?

It might have gone to my department. I have not seen any application of that kind.

To set the case he has mentioned up against the release of Harris and Pottle is grotesque.

I would not have intervened had not the Minister made an extraordinary amount of capital on the very flimsiest grounds out of the cancellation of this man’s deportation order. I cancelled that order. The man was released before I took office and the matter came before me in September or October, 1921, six months after his release when the police wanted to carry out a deportation order issued 12 months before.

He should have been deported at once.

That seemed to me to be an extremely harsh measure. Except under extraordinary circumstances I made it a rule, as Minister of the Interior, not to deport a man who had been resident in the country more than ten years. I think it is extremely harsh to send out of the country a man who has been living here ten years or more, while it is not fair to the country you send him to. If a man comes here as a child and stays here for 30 years, and then becomes undesirable, we must put up with it and, so to speak, consume our own smoke. For these two reasons I cancelled the order—first because he had been released for more than six months, and, secondly, because he had been living in South Africa for 30 years. As the Minister makes such an extremely unauthorized and unjustified use of the cancellation of this deportation order, it is only fair that the committee should know why the order was not carried into effect.

I am not for a single moment questioning the action of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), but I cannot understand how, this man having been released from prison in February. 1921, and being allowed to roam about the country for months, the police should then ask that the deportation order should be put into operation. I can understand the then Minister’s position and I am attacking the men responsible and not the Minister.

The Minister has afforded the committee a tremendous amount of amusement.

That is more than we get from your side.

But the Minister was not in the least bit convincing. Notwithstanding the fact that his action was challenged only this afternoon the Minister was prepared with documents bearing on the case.

I mentioned it the other day.

I understand the Minister said that he would not have been aware of the facts but for the letter he received. Now, instead of a letter, we have a voluminous report. The Minister attempted to justify his right to release certain prisoners because previous administrations had done something similar. Is that a reason? What is the point in the whole of the Minister’s story—was his object to besmirch his predecessor in office? I think that is playing the game rather low. In view of the Minister’s proposal not to proceed with the Liquor Bill this year, a statement was recently made at Johannesburg.

The hon. member cannot discuss the Liquor Bill now, as it is on the order paper.

I am not going to discuss the Liquor Bill, but I want to know whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the fact that the sale of yeast is on the increase.

Yes, and I have dealt with it in the debate.

I express mild astonishment at the way in which the Minister has twisted something which was said here about the police control of traffic. The Minister referred to the shortcomings of the mother city, but this is his own mother city.

He was a bit jingoistic in those days.

Never. I could not help being born here.

The point made was that the police were running in people for infringing the motor-car parking regulations, and the Minister referred to the evil habits of Cape Town people. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that a large number of these convictions for breaches of the motor-car regulations are visitors whom we welcome, and they are dealt with for breaches of the regulations committed in ignorance. We want the public and the police to co-operate, and they are anxious to co-operate, but we do not want to have the public irritated, seeing the police roaming about on this work when they are so badly needed for other purposes. We know the work is distasteful to them, and we know that we want more police here, so we do not want to see them used in an entirely unnecessary way and a way in which one is not getting the best out of their services. The Minister has managed to distort what was said the other night, but we are still of the same view that we want the best done with the motor regulations in Cape Town, and the best is not being done. There is a great need for these policemen who are doing this work to be used, and many more of them, for the correction, prevention and discovery of crime. When the police are used for this purpose, a great deal more might be done in the way of cautioning people. I should not be surprised if the Minister himself has not been in great danger of being run in.

I want to refer to the question of poll tax cases, and to ask the Minister why the sentences of the magistrates are so varied. In one case the sentence imposed was one of three months’ imprisonment, or until they paid the tax of £1, and dozens of natives were committed to that term until they paid the tax. I don’t say whether that is right or wrong, but we find in other cases they are sentenced to only one month, and there are more “one month” than any other sentences, and in one case it was £1 or ten days. What can the natives feel when they find for the self-same offence in one district they get three months, and in another district they get ten days? Instead of these wholesale raids, if summonses were issued on a few specially selected, it would have the effect of making the native pay up. As it is, there is something wrong in the state of Denmark. I also want to refer to the large number of coloured people who are arrested. It is possible to get their names and addresses and to get them to court by summonses. I am sure the average policeman would rather have the thing done by summons than by arrest. I also want to call the Minister’s attention to the state of public buildings in Port Elizabeth. They have now added the revenue office to the police building, and if the Minister of Finance visited there and saw the pigeon-holes for the large staff, I am sure something would be done. The building was built in 1890 for magistrate’s court purposes alone, but now you have added this great department to it. There is no such thing as lavatory accommodation in the place, and there is no waiting room, and the whole thing is in such a state, I am positive the Minister must do something. It is easy enough to do it. There are lots of buildings to be had which are not very expensive, and I feel that the Department of Finance working in this building along with the Department of Justice is hampered in its work. For years I have advocated this, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) joined me years ago, that whenever districts cry out for police, give them what they want and pay half the cost. It is done in America, where the local authority pays one-half of the cost of the police and the central authority pays the other half. You can then give them as many police as they want, and in that way meet the local demand. I would like to call attention to the evidence given before the select committee last year, to the effect that the sale of drink was common on Sundays, and that the law was violated frequently. The Minister knows a locality where the law is not carried out. Surely it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to see that the law is carried out, and that proper provision is made in the matter of police. [Time limit.]

Whatever justification there may be in some cases for the right to release certain prisoners. I do think that the Minister of Justice himself will admit that it is a very serious thing to release prisoners who have committed crimes against women or children. I think that public opinion in this country is against this policy, which has been carried out to a certain extent by the Minister in the exercise of his right of releasing prisoners. I know of cases in Natal where very strong feeling was created because the Minister released prisoners who had committed crimes against women and children. Some of them were abominable crimes. The Minister will remember the case of Alion. Then there was a man called Feinstein, and another man called Cillie. I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that whenever crimes have been committed against women and children, in no case will he allow his heart to soften towards these culprits, and that where persons have been convicted for crimes of this character they will have to stand the full racket of the convictions. I would like to bring up a matter which is of interest to my constituency, and that is the charge office at Dannhauser. This matter has been brought to the notice of the Minister on several occasions, and I would like to know whether there is any hope of a proper charge office being provided at Dannhauser. It is most undesirable that the present state of affairs existing there should continue. Another matter I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the conditions upon which the police have been taken over in Maritzburg. There seems to be a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to the exact condition upon which these police are taken over, what provision is made in regard to the safeguarding of their pensions rights, and their rights of promotion. I think it is desirable that the Minister should tell the House, and give a clear statement, so that the country may know the position. Another point that I want to bring up is the action of the Minister in disrating Newcastle so far as the commissioned officer of police there is concerned. Recently the commissioned officer has been removed from Newcastle. For 40 years Newcastle has had a police officer in charge. It is desirable that that centre should have a police officer, for the reason that he is there to see that proper supervision is exercised over the large native population in the district. The native has no respect for a sergeant, and he will only show respect for the man who is in command. We feel that the disrating of these towns and having a sergeant in charge is a very serious thing as far as many of the inland towns in Natal are concerned. It has happened at Greytown and elsewhere.

It is all over the country.

The Minister knows that very strong representations were made. I believe that in the long run it is going to prove false economy. If we had had a police officer on the spot, it might have put quite a different complexion on the affair at Charlestown.

There was a commissioned officer.

You had to send all the way to Dundee to get him.

Vryheid.

All the way to Vryheid. That is a very long distance from Charlestown. The Minister knows that very strong representations were made. They were not made on a party basis.

It is all over the country the same representations, not in Natal only.

We have had commissioned officers at these centres in Natal for the last 40 years. The step taken by the Minister is retrograde, and it is going to have detrimental effects.

When I moved the reduction of the Minister’s vote, I was told by the Chairman that I should confine myself only to the one point, viz., the release of prisoners. There are several other points which I wish to bring to the notice of the committee on which I wish to criticize the Minister’s conduct. I understand that a great debate took place last week in regard to the Kuruman sergeant. I was sorry that I was not here to join in the fray. The Minister, I understand, excused his refusal to answer questions in regard to that matter on the ground that his veracity had been doubted. This is entirely a wrong statement on the part of the Minister. I have Hansard here, and I want to explain to the Minister exactly how that matter arose. I put a question to the Minister with regard to this case on the 22nd February last, and the Minister replied. Now it seemed to me that that was not a complete answer, and I put this supplementary question to the Minister—

I say now to the Minister that if he had answered that question which I put to him, it would have been the end of the matter so far as I am concerned. What did he say? Simply—

I say this to the Minister, that if there has been any trouble or misapprehension, it is due to his own hasty attitude in this matter. If he had given me the assurance I asked him for, the matter would have been ended as far as I am concerned. If he thinks, or any other Minister thinks, he is going to come to this House, and when a perfectly legitimate question is put and is allowed by Mr. Speaker, that he is going to end the matter by saying “I won’t answer,” then he is mistaken, so far as I and, I think, other members on this side are concerned. The question was put in a perfectly courteous way. I wanted to have his assurance that he had not been guilty of an act of petty tyranny. I tell the Minister now that there was no question on my part of questioning his veracity. I am sure that, on further reflection, he will regret taking up that attitude. The next point I wish to raise in criticism of the Minister is this: I put two questions in relation to his extraordinary and hitherto unexplained action in dismissing from office two messengers of the court, the one at Ventersdorp and the other at Witbank. I asked him why these messengers had suddenly, at very short notice, been dismissed, and why other persons had been put in their places. The Minister gave no real reason for their dismissal. What was his reply in both cases?—

Quite right.

Of course, anything the Minister does is right in the eyes of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. Surely I have the right, as a member of Parliament, to ask a functionary such as the Minister of Justice the reasons for his actions in his public capacity. I cannot accept such an answer as “I have done it because I wanted to do it.” The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has an entirely false conception of the functions of the Minister. I asked him why he terminated the services of men employed in a semi-public capacity and practically servants of the Department of Justice. The things the Minister does in his capacity, who he engages and who he dismisses, is a fit subject for discussion in this House. The Minister is only a servant of the public, like the rest of us. I have not the same happy complacency as the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet; I regard it as an entirely inadequate answer. Then I put the same question in regard to the messenger at Witbank: Why was Mr. Wilson summarily dismissed? It is a curious coincidence that he was turned out on the same date, July the 1st. The answer was—

In the case of Mr. Beukes, the whole legal profession at Ventersdorp at once made representations to the Minister, and said—

Of course, it was freely reported in the press, and the impression created that the whole idea was to carry out the policy of “jobs for pals,” to get rid of a man of South African party sympathies and replace him by a Nationalist; and one of the most prominent Nationalists at Ventersdorp is reported to have said—

However that may be, I am not content, and I do not think the House could be content when the Minister says—

Why did he want to make a change? What was the reason? Was there anything unsatisfactory in the nature of the service of these men? If not, then why were their services terminated in this way? Was it in order that there might be a party agent there? I drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that at Lichtenburg, his own constituency, the messenger to the court is a secretary of the Nationalist party. If that is a proper state of affairs, can one wonder when the Minister dismisses messengers of the court and replaces them by men who are said to be strongly of Nationalist sympathies, that the public suspect him and come to the conclusion that the policy is “jobs for pals,” enunciated two and a half years ago by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)? [Time limit.]

There are one or two matters I want to refer to. We have heard of the unfortunate affair which has occurred lately in Natal. I do not know what the scale is upon which these widows may be paid, but there was a scale at one time, and it was totally inadequate in the opinion of many of us. These men did not die a natural death, but in the course of duty, and I hope the Government will take action of some kind, so that the widows and dependants may be treated’ on a most liberal scale. Everyone knows that one mouth less to feed does not mean much to the widow with a family. I do ask the Minister that, if necessary, it may come to the Pensions Committee in order that the widows and dependants may get the fullest support they can get in the loss of those who lost their lives doing their duty in the face of danger. In 1912 we raised the question of judges’ salaries, and I was a great mover against a judge getting a pension of £1,500 and taking up an appointment somewhere else. In the whole of the public service, the salaries have not been increased, and I ask the Minister to consider whether the time has not arrived to make the scale pro rata with the 1912 scale. In regard to the judges’ salaries—

Judges’ salaries are affected by legislation and cannot be discussed now. The hon. member should ask a question.

Yes, I want to ask the Minister a question.

There is just one other point I want to raise, and that is the functioning of the licensing courts, particularly in Johannesburg. Speaking with long experience of that court and with second-hand knowledge of the other courts, I say they exercise an undue leniency in the case of licensees found guilty of contraventions of the Licensing Act. The theory is, a licensee does not receive a very heavy penalty from the Criminal Court because he will be dealt with by the Licensing Court When offences are brought home to licensees, and one would think they would lose their licences or their midnight privileges, nothing is done. And yet the Licensing Court admits that the town is over licensed, and instead of making a general reduction they say they must take advantage of the occasions as they arise to deprive licensees of their licences. I bring this up because I want the Minister to see whether he cannot send a circular to the various licensing bodies enjoining upon them the strict enforcement of the licensing laws. The Minister cannot compel these courts to obey him, but a circular would have a very salutary effect. If they do not obey, he can change the personnel in the following year. The pressure brought to bear in favour of erring licensees is very strong, but licensees should understand that the infraction of the conditions on their licence will be followed by a severe penalty. A licence holder is given a unique privilege and the monopoly of selling liquor, and the least one would expect is that he would keep within the law and loyally obey the conditions laid down; yet again and again one sees licensees brought up and convicted of breaking the law. A great many, like the Minister’s friends, the jewellers, when they see an opportunity of making a little extra profit by selling out of hours and on Sundays, seize that opportunity of breaking the law. In December, 1925, four new bottle store licences were granted in Johannesburg, and three to prominent men of the Labour party. Last year I took the occasion to bring that matter before the House, and the Minister was able to show that the grant was the unanimous action of the court, and I admit a great deal of the sting of my criticism disappeared. Take the case of George, one of the three. Major Trigger gave an account of his activities and. 12 months of his functioning. He got the worst of characters in the conduct of his business; about two months ago he came to that court applying for leave to transfer his licence to a purchaser, and he got between £7,000 and £8,000. Major Trigger said he had been so unsatisfactory, and had given the police so much trouble, that he advised that consent should be given to the transfer so as to get rid of him. But on Major Trigger’s report there was an excellent opportunity to do away with the licence altogether. Mr. Madden, another of the three, served a few months, and then sold the half or the whole of it, and came to the court for a transfer. He has taken a partner and sold an interest in that licence for a very large sum of money. Our licensing court in Johannesburg, and other courts as well, are absolutely ineffective in dealing with transgressions of the law by licensees. If they said that the licence is gone when the licensee broke the law, it would be more strictly observed than it is to-day. One penalty that used to be inflicted was taking away the midnight privileges, which had a salutary effect, but they have stopped even that now. In flagrant instances the court has said—

The most important point, to my mind, of this debate on the Minister’s policy of the remission and reduction of sentences is the effect on the prestige of the judges of the land. It will be well remembered that we have had certain cases in which the Minister has made comments on the sentences of some of our learned judges. The latest return of the Minister’s special releases amounts to 1,060 persons since he came into office. That takes no account of the large number of cases in which he has reduced sentences, although not immediately releasing the prisoners. I would remind the committee of the case of Van der Merwe, charged with fraudulent insolvency and not keeping proper books, in which the Minister commented unfavourably on the fact that, although Van der Merwe was found not guilty on the major charge by the jury, a sentence of two months’ imprisonment was imposed on him by the late Justice Sir Malcolm Searle for not keeping proper books. The inference the Minister drew was that the sentence was imposed because of the judge’s dissatisfaction with the jury’s verdict on the major charge. In order to vindicate the position of the late learned judge I wish to remind the Minister that there were certain other proceedings in connection with Van der Merwe in which another judge, Justice Gardiner, sitting in the civil division, commented as follows on Van der Merwe’s action—

The judge had no hesitation in declaring that this was a collusive action to defeat his creditors. The Minister, in dealing with the case in this House, stated that he had no reason to say that Van der Merwe’s insolvency was not honest. The Minister remarked unfavourably on the judge’s discharge of his duty in commenting on what the jury did so far as facts were concerned. This is a very wide and entirely false doctrine, and is utterly out of place in the mouth of the Minister of Justice. We come to another series of cases in Natal, in which the Minister commented on the severity of Mr. Justice Carter, and said it was such that, under the previous Government, cases had had to be dealt with by way of remission of sentence. When I went to the Minister’s office at his invitation to see the files of these cases only one could be produced, in which it was said that a remission of sentence had been granted by the previous Government. In that case over 1,000 railwaymen petitioned for the remission of a sentence on one of their fellows. Our complaint is that the Minister, light-heartedly, and without sufficient cause, releases people who really have no claim on the public sympathy. In the case of Harris you have a Minister releasing a man who was a fraudulent trustee, a class of person which has become so pestilential that the Minister himself once proposed to introduce a Bill providing for the appointment of an official trustee. Here is a most gross case, so gross in fact, that bodies identified with the cleanliness of business methods on the Rand—the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and the Witwatersrand Commercial Exchange—passed resolutions declaring their disapproval of the release of Harris. Although in this House, probably as the result of being in a more responsible position, the Minister adopts an attitude which is right-minded, and says we must punish offenders. Immediately afterwards he releases Harris under circumstances which can only be described as astounding. Then there was a case at Durban, in which a chemist and a person who seduced a girl were found guilty of culpable homicide. On the appeal of a relative of one of the parties, whom the judge ordered out of court because of his unsatisfactory evidence and conduct, the Minister reduced the sentence by one-half. In the case mentioned by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) a man who had committed offences on children of tender years had his sentence reduced to vanishing point by the Minister. Trivial reasons are given for the release of sentenced people, and in the case of Kalman Feinstein, sentenced for indecent assault on six children of tender years, one light-hearted gentleman asked that this criminal should be released because the Jewish holidays were at hand. That is making an absolute farce of judicial proceedings. There are other cases in which releases have been made in a very light-hearted manner. The effect of the Minister’s comments on the alleged severity of Mr. Justice Carter were followed by the most remarkable incident that has ever occurred in the history of our jury trials. Having been found guilty of a series of serious crimes an habitual criminal hurled the most insulting epithets at the judge, accusing him, in the foulest language, of being unfair and unjust, and abused him in a scandalous fashion. [Time limit.]

Amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick put and negatived.

I think the Minister should reply to the criticism. I know the Minister has had a long discussion on the vote, but we expect to hear a reply.

My trouble is that when I answer a few points people jump up and make more speeches. New points have been raised, and the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is the question of the licensing courts. I think I can issue this circular, but I do not know how far I can go regarding the influencing of the licensing courts. To try and keep down the issue of licences I adopted a certain attitude in regard to a certain town which I mentioned privately to the hon. member. Personally, I do not think we require any new licences at all in the country at the present stage and the licensing courts should not grant new licences until after the new Liquor Bill is passed, and that is particularly so in regard to the big urban areas. I have been making that clear for the last two years, and in one certain place I am going to adopt the policy I mentioned to the hon. member.

You mean in a Reef town.

I might send that circular my hon. friend refers to, so that the licensing courts shall be very strict in the observance of the licensing law of the country. There are serious infractions where men are not deprived of their licences, but there are a number of cases where the infractions are comparatively slight, and no one wants the licence taken away from these. The hon. member also raised the question of messengers. There is no question of messengers being officials or semi-officials of the State. They are temporary positions, and it is for the Minister to decide whether they have been long enough in the position and to make changes from time to time. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) referred to the question of pensions to the policemen who have lost their lives, but that is not really a matter for me. It falls under the Minister of Finance, but additions can only be made on a petition to this House. I do not think there is much chance of increasing judges’ salaries at the present stage. I agree that the salaries are not very high, but I do not think there is much chance at present of a change. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) raised an important point with regard to the poll tax. I admit the punishment of three months is too severe for the withholding of payment of poll tax, and matters of that kind should be brought to the notice of the State. I also agree that we should not easily arrest coloured men, but the onus is on the man to show that he is not a native under the Act. It certainly ought not to be necessary in the coast towns. But in Kimberley and other places like that it would involve heavy expense to prove who his parents are. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) referred to the question of the police at Maritzburg, and asked whether there was a misunderstanding in regard to the terms in which they were taken over. I don’t think so; it was a written document, and the pension rights of the men are not interfered with at all. They are entirely protected, and I have told the commissioner of police that if there are other terms to be embodied, I am not going to stand on the written document if those terms are necessary, and they can be reduced to writing. If they are necessary, I will accept them, and I am meeting them in every way in that respect. There is this question of the commissioned officer. The policy for the whole country is this. You have police districts and the principal town is the place where the commissioned officer is placed and the other towns are officered by sergeants. Newcastle is not the centre town of that district and so the commissioned officer goes to the principal town. Natal was the only place that got an additional district and they ought to be satisfied with the additions at Pietermaritzburg.

There is one comment I should like to make with regard to the return published in the annual report of the police where there are some startling figures which call for comment showing an enormous progressive increase in offences since the Minister assumed office. On page 84 of the departmental report there is a report showing the percentage of serious crime in relation to population in the various centres of the Union. In the Cape Western District the percentage of population is 10.86, yet the percentage of serious crime 17.78. On the Witwatersrand the percentage of population is 8.31 and the percentage of serious crime 20.70.

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

I move—

Agreed to.

I notice that it is said—

It may happen that the Bill will shortly become law and be published, and that at that moment drought will still prevail. Someone may then get a grant, and I should like to invite the Minister’s attention to the obligation to buy the stock within three months, and that this is wrong in such a case. Such a person if he gets £200 or £300 will buy stock in any case, and I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to make a provision that the money granted to the man may be reserved for him until adequate rains have fallen. I move—

With regard to that I just want to say that we are not going to make any grant as long as drought prevails in the district because it would be impossible for such a man to make use of the money. We must wait until there has been rain and thereafter the stock must be bought within three months.

In those circumstances I withdraw my amendment, but may I still call the Minister’s attention to the fact that an application may possibly be made in a district where there has been drought and rain has subsequently fallen by people who have not yet had rain on that district, because it has fallen in patches. What must the commission do then?

The farms where drought still prevails will get no grant from the commission.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

I move—

I think the Minister will realize that fertilizers are very necessary sometimes. All our soil is not capable of producing without fertilizers, and I hope he will see his way to accept this.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

I appreciate it very much that the Minister has proposed to delete sub-clause 2, but I want again to urge the deletion of Clause 8 as a whole. It is impossible to compel the people to become members of agricultural credit associations. We want to make a success of those associations, but it is impossible to force a section of the farming population into them. It is the poor class of men who will accept any conditions to get assistance who can be compelled to become members. If the clause is deleted and we can induce the rich and poor farmers to become members of the credit associations, we shall make a success of them, but it is impossible to make a success of them in this way. Clause 8 has absolutely nothing to do with emergency loans. Possibly the Minister suggests getting the people to organize, but I do not regard that as the correct method. Let us scrap the clause and, as circumstances permit, get all the farmers to join the credit associations. Let the associations be as small as possible. The Act on agricultural credit associations was proclaimed in June last, and very few associations have so far been established. It is only when people live in thickly populated parts, close to each other, where credit associations with unlimited liability can be formed. When they live so far apart as on the countryside, then it is impossible to get them to be sureties, and this is particularly the case in such an uncertain industry as stock farming. We appreciate the willingness of the Minister to assist the districts tried by drought, but we cannot agree to the people being compelled to become members of the credit associations.

I should like to plead for the retention of Clause 8, and for the reason that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has a very incorrect impression of credit associations. In my constituency there have already been established 14 or 15 credit associations. The hon. member said that credit associations are not acceptable, because it is impossible for the people to join them because of the liability being unlimited. That is actually incorrect. If the hon. member studies the law and takes note of the practice, he will see that unlimited liability exists only in name. Actually the position is as follows: With the money that is obtained goods are purchased to the full value of the sum. The things have still a higher value than the price, because the credit associations buy wholesale for the people, and get them at from 10 to 25 per cent. cheaper than when the people buy privately. This is at once an advantage which a member of the credit association has. If one of the members makes a mistake or appears to be dishonest, then the other members have full right to immediately take possession of the things that were bought and bought cheaply, and if it appears that the things do not possess the full value, then they can take some of the man’s other possessions. In other words, unlimited liability does not exist at all. I think the laws on emergency loans should be of such a nature as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said at the second reading of this Bill, that we should strive so that the farmers should not be assisted once, but strive to bring about an organization among the farmers which is of a permanent character, and if that happens then emergency loans by the State will be much less required. If Clause 8 is deleted, then we get what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet does not want, i.e., the repeated application of the law. If the clause remains and a permanent organization of agricultural credit associations comes into being, then the people will be in a position to assist themselves. With the associations the district gets banks which belong to the farmers themselves, and where they can go for assistance. For this reason I hope that the Minister will not give in to the seductive speech of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet but will insist on membership of credit associations. It must also be borne in mind that a way out is given by Clause 8 in providing that a man need not join if he can prove that he could not obtain membership. That door is wide enough.

I should like to join the hon. member in pleading for the deletion of Clause 8. The whole matter turns on this, that a man has to become a member of an agricultural credit association if there is one in his district. As soon as he joins an association under Clause 12 of the Act, then under Clause 14 he becomes jointly and severally responsible for the debts of the association. Where there is not a credit association, the man is free, but where, unfortunately, he lives near to a credit association, he has to join up. Why is this distinction made? It is unjust towards the man who lives in the neighbourhood of a credit association. At the second reading the question was put to the Minister whether a man would be exempt in case there were a credit association in his district, and the members thereof would not admit him. The Minister answered in the affirmative, but I am going to put the question slightly differently now. Suppose that the man assisted under this Bill objects to become a member on account of certain persons who are members of the association, and for whom he does not wish to accept joint responsibility? Is he now to be compelled to assume responsibility? In the first case this assistance is quite separate from the assistance which is granted under the Agricultural Credit Associations Act. This Bill is intended to assist people who are having bad times. We who are concerned and who represent the afflicted districts alone know what disappointment there was after the big deputation went to the Government. We alone know of the large number of letters and telegrams that we got. We urged the Government every time to help the people until it ultimately decided to make provision. We appreciate it, but unfortunately Clause 8 is now added, which makes joining the credit associations compulsory. Now the disappointment is just as great. I think the Minister inserted the clause to assist co-operation. We should very much like to assist in making a success of the agricultural credit associations, but we want them to develop automatically. We will undertake to assist the Minister to make a practical success of the associations so that they may assist the people on the countryside. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oust) recommended this clause, and said that a few associations had been established in his constituency. I quite believe it, and if we were in the same circumstances as those people, then we would most willingly go in for them. In my constituency also there are parts where conditions are normal and which are thickly populated. There I would recommend credit associations and go out of my way to get them established. For these people, however, I do not consider it at all desirable, because conditions are quite different. I appreciate their practical objections to the Bill. If we want to assist the people, let us do so without Clause 8. The past has shown that the people fulfil their obligations under the old system. Under the Emergency Loan Act of 1916, the people practically fulfilled all their obligations. We do not as yet know the result of 1926-’27, but we know that it is not so satisfactory, because the drought still prevails in practically all those parts. Nevertheless, the people there are going to fulfil their obligations. The other day the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). (Mr. Jagger) referred to the report of the Land Bank, in which it was said that Government assistance through the co-operative societies and agricultural credit associations was better than direct assistance to individuals. The management of the Land Bank thinks that direct loans do more harm than good. The kind of loans, however, which are under discussion are not loans under the Emergency Loan Act, and cannot be compared with them. The people fulfilled their obligations under that Act, and I would like again to make a strong and yet very friendly appeal to the Minister to withdraw Clause 8.

I want to support the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden)) and I hope the Minister will give due attention to our wishes. We all admit the good intentions of the Agricultural Credits Act, and believe it will be of use to the farmers. If, however, we try to force it on the farmers, we shall make a failure of it. In the populous parts, such as in the grain districts, it may work well, but in the stock districts the people are scared about touching it. It will take a long time before the Act is accepted by those farmers. I know the Minister intends to assist the people, but if they are compelled to join the agricultural credit associations, I appreciate their difficulty. This Bill will in that way be made unpopular. Our farmers are gradually becoming accustomed to co-operation so that they are going in for it, but they are being frightened by this Bill. A farmer is being placed in a difficult position because, if he does not become a member, it puts him in a bad light. The members of the credit associations will not take in anybody. I do not mean that the Government should advance money to anybody, but I want to request the Government not to compel the people to become members by this Bill. It will take a long time before the people in the thinly populated parts will go in for it, however good the object may be.

I really do not now understand the attitude of hon. members in their objections, that the Bill will frighten people from forming agricultural credit associations. In the districts where emergency loans are now proposed, there is not a single credit association, They even came here in a large deputation and said that they could not form agricultural credit associations. All I lay down is that, if a credit association is formed, then the man who is assisted must join one within three months if he is permitted to.

You will compel them.

The hon. member has said that he is such a great friend of agricultural credit associations, but I have read out what he said at Murraysburg in his speech against credit associations. Hon. members who want to wreck the Bill must continue as they are doing now. We cannot drop this clause. The idea of the Government is that the people in the future should be put in the position of helping themselves, and if the whole country is organized into agricultural credit associations it will not be necessary to come to the Government and to ask for a Bill on drought emergency loans. They can be organized, and with the assistance of the Land Bank and of their own people be assisted under the Agricultural Credits Act. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) said that we should frighten the people, because they would be afraid of forming agricultural credit associations, but here it is so plainly stated that the things given to assist the people remain the property of the State. Those who are assisted cannot dispose of them, and it is therefore much safer for the more wealthy man to take in as a member the person who is being assisted. I do not think that the clause is intended to frighten the people, but to assist them. Let me say that I am not prepared to withdraw the clause, and if there are districts which in the circumstances do not wish to go in for it, it is their own affair. The Government wants to assist, because we know with what difficulties the people in the districts tried by drought have to face. Hon. members must not, however, object to the Bill, because our experience in the past has taught us to draft it on the best possible lines.

To appreciate the necessity of the clause, it is necessary that we should bear in mind the objects of the Minister. I understood from him that the object was to educate the people, and to lead to their joining the credit associations. The Minister admits that that is so, and therefore I do not know whether it should not be ruled that the clause falls outside of the title of the Bill. It is a Bill on drought emergency loans, and the Minister wants to use it to push co-operation, and to compel people to join agricultural credit associations. No one can decide otherwise, because no one will get money unless within three months thereafter he joins an agricultural credit association, if there is one. If he can prove that he cannot become admitted, then he still retains the money. This clause has nothing to do with the people who have suffered through drought. They will get the money without the clause, and can keep it without joining up. Therefore, I state that the clause has nothing to do with the Bill, and I should like to have the Chairman’s ruling whether it is in order to incorporate such a clause under the title of the Bill, i.e., to use a Bill on drought emergency loans to advance co-operation.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he made no objection at all at the second reading. The objection should have been raised at the second reading. As for the title, if it does not cover the clause, it can be subsequently amended.

That is what I should like to know. Do you think the title covers it or not?

I can give no decision on that point now. The point should have been raised at the second reading.

I am sorry that the Minister does not see his way to accept the amendment, and I am afraid that this clause will be the cause of people in parts where there is still drought not making use of this Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) said that the system was a great success in his constituency, but he certainly did not have experience of those living in areas where the drought every two or three years caused them to trek about 150 miles to the one side, or hundreds of miles to the other side, to save their stock. Under such circumstances it cannot be expected that farmers should join credit associations with unlimited liability. It is, at any rate, something which at present stock farmers will not yet accept, and I think this clause will’ do more than anything else to make the credit associations unpopular. The State will now advance them money, but they have to join up with seven or more persons belonging to a credit association, persons in whom possibly they have no confidence, and who they consider incompetent to do business. They are compelled to join, and it will be a great objection. I think that all the members of districts where stock farming is done will have the same experience as myself. The last emergency loans were a great success. The State suffered hardly any damage, and the money advanced by the Minister was repaid. Possibly the people will hereafter decide to establish credit associations themselves, and that will be a different thing, but at the moment I fear many people will refrain from using the Bill, because of the inclusion of Clause 8. We know the people very well; they are very much afraid of being sureties for others. I am pleading with the Minister to leave out the clause in the interest of the farmers in my division and of the people in districts who have been hard hit by drought, although I know that it is very difficult, when once the Minister has said anything, to get him to alter his decision.

The Minister has put us in a very awkward position, as he says that opposition to the clause will very seriously jeopardize the prospects of passing the Bill. Personally, I don’t think because there is opposition to this one clause the measure should be withdrawn, but we do not want to see this measure used as a means of enforcing co-operation. It would not be fair to use the misery and distress of farmers to force them to become co-operators and the result would be the reverse of that desired by the Minister. If the credit societies are to become successes membership must be voluntary and not compulsory. The Minister would be well advised to withdraw his threat. The clause is unnecessary and entirely out of place in this Bill. The proviso “Unless he proves he is unable to obtain admission to a local credit society” is an admission that it will be difficult for these people to join credit societies.

I also want to associate myself with the hon. members who have spoken against Clause 8, and I think the Minister will be wise in withdrawing the clause. It is not in the interest of the farmers to be compelled to become members of the credit associations. The Minister has referred to Denmark and said that the credit system worked well there. Denmark, however, cannot be compared with our country. As against the thick population in Denmark we have a sparse population. As against the regular rainfall there we have an irregular rainfall here. My constituency is almost as large as half of the Free State and how can farmers who live far from each other be expected to watch each other? I hope the Minister will not stick to the clause. As I have already said if three out of seven members forming a credit association go under they will drag the other four with them. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the clause.

I should like to associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) and to ask the Minister to withdraw the clause because it will make the Act unworkable. We have already had emergency loans and the country lost very little money. Then the compulsory clause was not inserted. The Minister will not make a success of credit associations if he keeps the clause in the Bill. It is something the farmers do not want and the Bill is hopeless with the clause, not as the Minister said, without the clause. Credit associations are not yet popular and must first sink in before the people will understand the principle. They are very much afraid of being liable for other people. I urge the scrapping of the clause which is quite superfluous.

I cannot understand why hon. members are attacking the Minister so much in connection with this clause. The object here is to assist necessitous people, and the House is quite prepared to do so. The Minister here wants a little more security for the State. We must not forget that a large sum is being taken from the Treasury, and we as members of Parliament have the duty of watching over the money of the taxpayers. The principle must be encouraged, that if people are in need they should stand together and learn to help each other a little. If we always give the people public money they will never learn that principle. Hon. members have said that the country never lost money in the past.

Will Uncle Louw be surety?

The hon. member always introduces trivialities. I feel just as much for the poor people who have been tried by drought, and we on this side are prepared to assist the people. The Minister has come here with good intentions and his own people are all opposing him. Even with this provision the security is very little. Hon. members say that nothing will be lost, but in our country we are subject to many chances. A man may possibly be assisted, then there comes another drought and he again loses everything which he has bought with the public money. I feel that I must support the Minister and I think he is acting honestly in the interests of the country. Nor is it so difficult for seven people to come together. A father and his sons and good fellows can join up. I hope that the Minister will not give in.

I cannot associate myself with what has been said by some speakers, viz., that if the clause stops in the Bill the Bill will be a complete failure, but I should like to ask the Minister if he does not desire too much in wanting to kill two birds with one stone. The object of the Bill is clear, viz., the same as that of the 1924 Act to assist farmers who have suffered so much damage through drought, that they are not able to continue their farming. That is the chief object, and as an afterthought the Minister has included Clause 8 to popularize co-operative societies. We know that the Minister is a great protagonist of co-operative societies and that the whole House agrees in that, but this is surely the first time in the history of cooperative societies that practically compulsory membership of co-operative societies is introduced, because credit associations are practically nothing else than co-operative societies to borrow money. In the case of other co-operative societies both of limited and unlimited liability anyone is at liberty to join or not. Even with regard to the law on the compulsory sale of tobacco by co-operative societies, the law does not yet provide to include that a producer of tobacco must be a member of a co-operative society. Here, however, anyone who borrows money is obliged to become a member of a credit association, and with unlimited liability. Therefore the position into which a person comes is that he also becomes responsible for the debts of others, while he himself in addition has all the time a great debt on his shoulders. And of what value is a man who co-operates unwillingly? Nearly every co-operative society has had experience with unwilling members. They are a brake on any corporation, and a member who does not join a co-operative society willingly is more of a hindrance than a benefit to it. Under the Act of 1924 good results were obtained. It worked well according to the report of the Land Bank, and the Act contained no Clause 8. I do not doubt for a moment that if Clause 8 is removed this Bill will work just as well as the 1924 Act, and then the Minister will remove a great objection. I shall certainly support the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden).

The Minister will remember this is a clause which I referred to at the second reading and since then I have read the clause carefully and I cannot see any objection to this remaining in the Bill. Hon. members seem to think if this clause remains loans cannot be obtained from the Government. Surely, if a man is desirous of receiving assistance from the State he ought to be prepared to join a credit society if the members of the society wish him to join. If the credit society is not desirous of having him as a member that does not prevent the department granting him a loan under the Bill. In support of the Minister I say that if these credit societies are good, and I believe they are good, and I believe that we should encourage people in agriculture to realize the advantage of the credit societies, then I believe that if a man is desirous of obtaining a loan of £200 to £300 from the State, and a credit society is established in his district, then he should be prepared to join that society and become responsible for the advances to other people. When you advance money to people of this class you must not alone have a watchdog in the Land Bank, but you must have watchdogs amongst the members of the society who shall see that a member looks after and treats his stock properly—

Even if he treks for hundreds of miles with his stock?

Surely, the Minister has an added security in the knowledge that other members of the society are acting as watchdogs and are seeing that this man carries out his obligations. I agree with the Minister that it is advisable to have this clause in the Bill. I think the Bill will do a great deal of good and I do not think that anybody who asks for assistance under this Bill will have any objection to becoming a member of a credit society.

It seems very strange to me that those hon. members who would like the Bill to pass are now opposing it the most. We could long since have passed the Bill but objections are now raised without the least substance. Our intention is that of every member in the House when he goes about his constituency. There he preaches co-operation but now he says in the House that the people are afraid to be responsible one for the other, and to be sureties. They, however, want the Government to take taxpayers’ money out of the Treasury and to be sureties. What we are doing in the clause is to say that if an agricultural credit association should be formed in the district then persons who are assisted must become members of the association, if it will admit them. The clause, however, still further protects the members of credit associations in the district, who are afraid of the poor people because they have the security that the money which is advanced to buy stock will remain for five years the property of the State. We do not ask that the people should remain members of the association for longer than five years. What objection can there be to the clause? It is only to educate our people and to encourage them to co-operate and to help themselves in the future as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has just said again quite rightly. What is the result to-day? Now that the people hear that a Bill on drought emergency loans is being introduced I get letters from all parts of the country asking for the law to be proclaimed there. We cannot proclaim the whole country because we have not got sufficient money. Because I receive so many requests I ask hon. members to assist in getting the Bill passed. I feel convinced that hon. members who are now objecting will, in a year or two, be glad that the Bill was passed because in their own districts banks and circles will be formed so that the people need not come to the Government for assistance. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Niewenhuize) mentioned the case of the tobacco co-operative society, but I may say that the members of that, notwithstanding the fierce competition that existed, are glad that it took place because they made more profit than before the establishment of the society. I, therefore, appeal to the House to pass the clause.

As the Bill stands it is intended for districts where drought emergency loans are necessary, and I think it is a very good plan of the Minister’s to assist the people. I have listened to the speakers and their objections to the Bill, and there is substance in them because a new compulsory principle is being introduced. Now I want to ask them what security there is for the Land Bank if the money is advanced.

The stock.

If the stock die what then?

The clause now provides that the other farmers must pay.

They must assist their friends if they can. The Bill cannot be drawn otherwise than what it is now. If it is amended and if there is no security where will you land with your expenditure. The taxpayers will then have something to say. If the Bill were in respect of the whole country it would be another matter, but it is only for a few districts. If we allow public money to be given to people who cannot give security then Clause 8 is necessary notwithstanding that I have said that the principle laid down looks like compulsion. We are now, however, being forced to compulsion. Clause 8 is a very good “helpmekaar” clause. I do not think that I shall require it for my district, but if it is passed I think I shall find many farmers to assist their friends. It looks a little bit strong and severe, but if Clause 8 is deleted what remains, and where will the security be? Although I do not agree with the principle of compulsion you can do nothing else here to give the State security.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) at all. He asks where we will get security for the money. Suppose the drought emergency loans were granted in my constituency. There are no credit associations, but still the money is advanced. Where then is the security? Can the hon. member tell me?

Do you not trust your people?

You can be surety for them.

I can say like the hon. member for Bethal that there has not yet been an emergency loan given in my district. I do not, however, know if it is advisable to compel the people now. If I form an association with six poor people and have to pay for everybody—

Then you will be helping the poor people.

I am not as rich as the hon. member and I am not a millionaire who digs for diamonds and makes £13,000 out of a claim.

That is not even true.

That is the difficulty in the Bill. I do not know what the Minister should do, but it is very difficult to compel a man to become a member of a credit association. I reckon that if Riversdale, where there is no credit association, can be assisted then other districts where there are credit associations can be assisted without being compelled to join. The clause will have the effect that when I go home I shall tell the people not to establish credit associations because otherwise they will have to join.

The hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) and for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and other hon. members who are now trying to defend the clause think that if the clause is excluded that the security to the State will thereby be taken away, but that the State will be secured if it remains in the Bill. If hon. members will read the clause then they will see that is not the case. The proof of that is that the Minister has not yet used that argument. His argument is that the people must learn to join the agricultural credit associations and to go in for co-operation. If hon. members studied the clause then they will see that the applicant gets the money and has to join a credit association within three months if there is one in his district If he wants to join but the members will not admit him then he nevertheless retains the money. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort says that if he is a good man that the members will admit him. That is just where the difficulty comes in. The landowner who has lost his stock applies for money to buy stock and when he asks for admission he is accepted. The other members may, however, be people who have stock but not land. The landowner will then say that he will not make use of the Bill because he is the only man who owns land and has therefore to be responsible for all the other members. It is made impossible for the man who owns something and who is acceptable to the member to make use of the Bill. The man who possesses nothing will not be admitted, but he has already had the money and can go to the Minister or to the board of the Land Bank and say that the members would not admit him. Then he keeps the money and where does the security come in. The clause gives the State no further security, and the Minister did not claim that, because he knows that the State is not getting any extra security by it. He wants to compel farmers to become members of credit associations and to go in for co-operation. It is wrong to do that in a Bill which has as its object assisting people in the drought-stricken districts. I am surprised at the Minister threatening that if the clause is not passed there is a danger of the whole Bill being wrecked. If he takes that view then he does not view the matter from the same standpoint as the sufferers from the drought.

I quite agree with the hon. members who oppose this clause. I cannot see how it comes to find a place in this Bill. If the Minister had come to this House and had said that every person who has advances in any district of the Union must be a member of a cooperative society, we need not, perhaps, have agreed with him, but there would have been consistency in that. But here you may get this Act applied in a dozen districts and in these districts men are going to get relief under this Act, but they are not going to be asked to join a credit society, because one does not exist. I think the Minister must realize that the country does not want these credit societies. I would like him to get up and tell us honestly how many credit societies have been formed in the Union under the Act passed last year. My information is that three have been formed. The farmers of the country are not going to accept these credit societies. They are not going to accept this principle of joint and several liability. Personally, I think it is a bad principle. We are all agreed as to the principle of co-operation, but this is compulsory co-operation. We are not going to secure the advance of cooperation amongst the farmers by means of compulsion. The essence of co-operation is a mutual agreement amongst those who decide to adopt the principle, not by outside pressure such as a clause like this puts upon them. I ask the Minister to leave this clause out of the Bill. Let us get on with this Drought Relief Bill and leave this question of co-operation or credit societies outside the scope of the Bill altogether. I move—

The hon. member cannot move the deletion of the clause. He can simply vote against it.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the schedule,

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

Paragraph 7 makes provision that if anyone has secured under tins Bill money to purchase livestock, produce, implements or seed it will be protected. Nobody will be able to attach in execution of a judgment of a court of law any of these articles until such time as the manager of the Land Bank has issued a certificate that the capital and interest have been paid. As soon as that is done the stock or goods can be attached. I want to make provision that the man will be able to retain this stuff for at least two years after such certificate has been issued. My amendment only refers to such stuff as was bought by money advanced by the Land Bank. All other stuff is unaffected, but the stock or the implements which have been bought and the increase of that stock, which will be covered until such time as the manager has issued his certificate, I desire that to be covered for a period of two years thereafter. For that purpose an amendment will be necessary. My amendment is not in any way going to affect the security of the Land Bank, and it is not going to refer to any debts incurred before this period, nor will it refer to any possessions of that man outside what he owns through the money that he borrowed. My reason for doing this is that it will afford protection for a further two years. If you were to give him a little extension of time he would have every chance of paying his other creditors, but otherwise they might seize the stuff, and he would be thrown back on the State. I consider it is a very reasonable amendment, and I trust the Minister will accept it, and thus enable us to protect the stock or implements for a further period of two years after the manager of the Land Bank has issued his certificate in order that that man will be able to keep on his legs and pay his other debts to his creditors.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. If we were to pass legislation of this kind, then we will make the whole position in the country insecure. What will the creditors say if the Government says that the man who has been protected by Government for five years, during which he has had an opportunity of paying something off, shall have two years more during which the creditor cannot demand payment. Can the State say that, after the five years, it will still give a helping hand to the man, and prevent the creditor from touching his property? I think we are going too far there, and such a thing would shock the whole system of credit. The hon. member certainly means quite well, but I do not think the House will pass such a thing. Then the man will be protected for seven years. I think we are going a very long way in giving him a helping hand and protecting him for five years. If anyone then has incurred further debts he must surely pay them in the end.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the Minister. I have actually received instructions from a section of my constituents to get this principle in the Bill. What is the main object of the Government? Not to pay the creditors of the man, but to help him on to his feet and to retain his ground. Those people, in consequence of the drought, are in debt to-day. They are bankrupt, and have lost everything through the drought. If it is inefficiency of their own the Government will not assist them, but the Government gives the money of the taxpayer to assist these people. Now the man commences to work and possibly owes from £500 to £700. He is practically bankrupt, but is enabled to go on with his farming. But what happens? Immediately the five years are over the creditor comes in has the man declared bankrupt and takes everything. I know that the Minister makes provision for the five years of the Land Bank loan, but that happened in the past, and will now happen after the five years.

Are the people never to pay their debts then?

I agree, but the whole object of the Bill is to put the man on his feet again and to enable him to remain on the ground and to make a living for himself and his family. As for me, I would even advocate five years further protection. The creditor who has delivered goods to a farm and very often charged good interest can give a little longer time. He gets interest on his money.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move—

I only wish to say that a man will possibly have a small business on his farm, and then he would be prevented by this from having it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Agriculture certain amendments were made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I move—

This little Bill was introduced by me for a double purpose. The first purpose is to amend certain existing laws. One is the Immigration Regulation Act of 1913, and the other the Indian Relief Act of 1914, which itself is an amendment of the Act of 1913; also the Asiatic Registration Act of the Transvaal and the Chinese Exclusion Act of the Cape Province. These laws have been in operation for quite a considerable time, and experience has shown that in certain respects they ought to be amended. There are certain defects which are very evident. The other purpose for which I have introduced this Bill is to give effect to the agreement between the Union Government and the Government of India with regard to the position of Indians in the Union. Most of these provisions in this little Bill are not new to the House. Some of them have been included in the Areas Reservation Bill, introduced by me last year, which was the subject of an inquiry by a select committee; and, as far as the agreement with the Government of India is concerned, that agreement has been exhaustively discussed in this House only recently. In any case, a summary of the conclusions of the conference embodying the agreement has been laid on the Table of the House, and hon. members are well acquainted with that summary. There is no general principle underlying the provisions of this Bill, and, therefore, the only thing I can do is to deal with the various provisions seriatim. One provision has to do with the subject of deposits. It proposes to amend the Immigration Act of 1913. Deposits are required from immigrants to the country in cases of appeal when they appeal to the Appeal Board, and the Government has security, by deposits, against any loss. Further, it often happens that an immigrant appeals, but because it takes some time before the appeal is heard, he cannot be sent on by the vessel by which he arrived, and it is not always certain that he can be sent away soon if he loses his appeal. In the meantime he must be maintained by the Government, and in that case a deposit is required from the intending immigrant. Also, the shipping companies must give the Government security that while the ship is in port their men will not be left behind and come into the country illicitly, evading the immigration laws, but will be taken on board again and taken away by these vessels. The money deposited by these companies is forfeited in case these men should go ashore and not return. As the law stands at present, it is provided that the deposit shall be sufficient in the opinion of the Minister. This has always been interpreted that the immigration officer concerned can fix the deposit, but recently one of the courts—the Cape Provincial Division— held that the deposit must be fixed by the Minister in every particular case. Everybody will see that that makes the Act very difficult to work, because the Minister is not always in Cape Town. He may be in Pretoria, and not be acquainted with the circumstances. Therefore, we propose to amend this clause by making it competent for the immigration officer to fix the amount legally as he has done in practice in the past. The maximum remains at £100. Another provision deals with appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. It is rather strange that, under the existing law while there are in the Union three different appeal boards, no provision has been made for appeals to the Appellate Division. This has led to an impossible state of affairs. We find, for instance, that in one province a judgment has been given on a certain point which differs completely from a judgment given on the same point of law by the Provincial Division in another province. That has been the case on very important points. One point is whether the ward of an Indian could legally be introduced into the country. One division held that this was lawful; another division came to the conclusion that it was not lawful. That made it impossible for the department to administer the law in a uniform manner. In one province the order deeming all Asiatics to be prohibited immigrants was held to be illegal, while it was held to be legal by another division, and it was only casually that the matter was dealt with by the Appeal Court, whose decision saved the order. To prevent confusion arising in this manner, we propose that appeals shall be possible on a point of law from the provincial divisions to the appellate division. Another provision of the Bill concerns deportations, and seeks to extend the grounds on which deportations may be effected. We add to the existing grounds incest, sodomy and aiding and abetting the introduction of immigrants in an illicit way as far as the law is concerned. It has come to the knowledge of the department that there are organizations for the introduction illicitly of immigrants into the country. We add to the penalty that people breaking the law in this way may themselves be deported. There is another provision which makes it an offence to evade the immigration law and the immigration officers. At present if a prohibited immigrant only succeeds at the port or at any point of our extensive land borders in evading the immigration officer, then he is practically safe. Of course, he can be dealt with by the department when he is discovered, but discovery is very difficult, and it throws the onus on the department of discovering the prohibited immigrant and deporting him. We want a deterrent, and, therefore, we propose that evasion itself is an offence, and a prohibited immigrant if he comes into the country must report himself to an immigration officer’ within eight days. A further provision concerns the entrance into South Africa of immigrants suffering from tuberculosis. At present, persons suffering from certain infectious diseases are regarded as prohibited immigrants. Persons suffering from tuberculosis are not ipso facto prohibited, and are allowed to enter with the permission of the Government. That permission is required, because every person suffering from tuberculosis is a potential source of danger, and the Department of Public Health protects the public against that danger by admitting such a person under certain conditions with respect to his movements and mode of life. To guard the Government against loss in such cases, it is usual to require from the tubercular immigrant a deposit in a bank, so that if he does not comply with the restrictions he may be sent back to the country whence he came at his own expense. Recently quite a number of cases have come under the notice of the department of persons coming to the country who have purposely given false information to shipping companies and to the Government on the forms they have to fill up on board ship, and in this way they have secured admission into the Union. As we did not know that they were suffering from tuberculosis, no deposit was required, and when they were sent back it was at the expense of the Government. As the Bill stands to-day the onus is thrown on the shipping companies, and if it is discovered according to this Bill anyone is suffering from tuberculosis and has given false information and has entered the Union without giving security to the Government, within six months he may be sent back at the expense of the shipping companies. The shipping companies have objected against this provision and have sent a deputation to me to put forward their case. I have promised them that I am willing, in the committee stage, to move an amendment to the effect that if a person is introduced into the country suffering from tuberculosis, and it has not been brought to the notice of the port health authorities, then the shipping companies shall not be liable, if they can prove to the satisfaction of the port health officer of the Union that when the person entered the Union he was not suffering from tuberculosis, but that he contracted the disease after he entered the country. Another point is they shall not be liable, in the case of any particular passenger whom they suspect suffers from tuberculosis, and of which case notice is given beforehand to the port health officer, to the effect that they suspect that such a patient is suffering from tuberculosis, so that the port health authorities are enabled to examine themselves such a passenger and satisfy themselves as to the state of health of the passenger. The companies are fairly satisfied with this amendment which I am going to move in the committee stage, so that there is no reason, therefore, why it should not be accepted by the House.

How can the captain of the ship know that a passenger is suffering from tuberculosis after the health officer passes him at the port?

There is a surgeon on board. The other part of the Bill deals with the agreement between the Union Government and the Government of India. This agreement does not require much legislation. There is a good deal of the agreement which can be, and will be, carried out administratively. No legislation is necessary to secure, in connection with the assisted emigrating scheme, the co-operation of the Government of India. No legislation is necessary with regard to the Union of South Africa. The bonus under the agreement has been fixed by the Government for the future, administratively, and it is not a matter of law. There are two points which must be dealt with legislatively. The first has to do with the further restrictions we place on the immigration of Indians into the country, and the other has to do with the conditions under which public money may be expended for the repatriation of Indians under the new assisted emigration scheme. As far as the further immigration of Indians is concerned, and the further restrictions against their entrance into the Union, I may explain that the position to-day under the Smuts-Gandhi agreement in the Indian Relief Act of 1914, is that Indians, who are themselves domiciled in the country, are at liberty to introduce into the country their wives and minor children under the age of 16 years, on condition such Indians, when living in the country shall only have one wife living in the country and shall not have children by any other living woman in the country. As I explained to the House on a former occasion, this opening left for the immigration of Indians is being abused to a large extent. We find Indians living in the country domiciled here only as individuals, but their home remains in India; then they introduce their minor children into the country, almost exclusively boys, simply for the reason of establishing a business domicile for these children, and as the law stands at present, these children, when they have once been here, even after they have become adults, as long as they live, they can always return under the existing law. Now that is a reason why there are being introduced into the country on an average 600 Indians per annum. On the one hand we spend a good deal of money every year to get Indians out of the country under our immigration scheme, and on the other hand Indians are, under the existing law, being continually introduced into the country to the extent of over 600 per annum.

Young men?

Yes, very few women, but mostly boys just under the age of 16. Now that was certainly not the intention of the legislation which was passed in 1914, and one of the results of the agreement to which we came recently with the Government of India is that as far as we can judge the further immigration of Indians will practically be stopped in future. We have made two alterations. The first is that any Indian who has been absent from the Union— I am speaking of adult Indians—for three years successively will lose his domicile in the Union. We make that, as was explained before, of general application. Of course, as Europeans do not enter the Union as immigrants, because they are domiciled here or have a right of domiciled in any particular dominion shall be Union simply because they can comply with the ordinary requirements of our immigration law, that will not in reality affect Europeans, but it will affect the Indians who, as a class, are deemed under the law of 1913 to be prohibited immigrants. After an absence of three years Indians will not be able to return to the Union unless they come to the Union as minor children of Indians who are domiciled in the country. The other alteration is in connection with the introduction of minor children into the country. We have agreed that instead of the provisions of the Indians Relief Act of 1914 in regard to this point, we shall bring into operation the Imperial Conference resolution of 1918, which provides that the minor children of an Indian domiciled in any particular Dominion shall be allowed to enter that dominion if they are accompanied by their mother, or if their mother is already domiciled in such dominion. In other words, the principle which is laid down in that resolution is that minor children can be introduced into the dominion only if in that domiciled in any particular dominion shall be as an individual, but the family as such. If this is brought into operation, according to the view of the delegation we had here from the Government of India and according to the view of our own department, the number of minor children who will be introduced into the country will be reduced to a minimum. It will be very much reduced, so that practically in that way the further immigration of Indians from abroad will be stopped. Further, the provision deals with the conditions under which public money may be expended in connection with the assisted emigration scheme. As I have explained on previous occasions, Indians who benefit under this scheme and who emigrate from South Africa to India or elsewhere with their families, will retain the right of re-entry into the Union on certain conditions if they return after the first year, but only during the second and before the end of the third year. If they remain away longer than three years they lose the right of re-entry. They cannot enter during the first year after their departure, so they must re-enter during the second or third year. As I have explained before, this is not a concession that we have made to the Government of India but it is a provision which is introduced with a view of making the emigration scheme more effective, but, of course, we must not forget that a large number of these Indians who wish to benefit under that scheme have been in this country for a considerable Time. More than one-third of them have been born in this country. Experience has taught us that the great objection on their part against going over to India is that on the day of their departure they must renounce the right of re-entering for ever into the Union. They know what they leave behind and they do not know what they will get on the other side, and in the uncertainty of their prospects they prefer to remain in South Africa. If this alteration is made it is expected that a very much larger number of Indians will avail themselves of the facilities for repatriation. There are certain conditions attached to the expenditure of money on this assisted emigration scheme and in connection with those Indians who avail themselves of the facilities. In the first place, if an Indian avails himself of the repatriation scheme, if he has got a family in South Africa, that is to say a wife and/or minor children, he cannot go alone; he must take his family with him. Then if he returns within, say, the second or third year he cannot return alone or the members of the family cannot return individually even if some of them who left as minors became majors on the other side. If they return they must return as a group again. If they do return then all the money which was expended on them by the Union Government in connection with this assisted repatriation scheme, must be refunded by them on the other side, before they embark, and we will make provision on the other side for the receipt of the money by authorities there who will work in conjunction with the Union Government. No passport to any Indian will be issued by the Government of India for embarkation to South Africa unless all the money in such cases has been refunded. I come to the amendments of the Asiatics Registration Act of the Transvaal. The amendments which the Bill proposes are of very minor importance. The one is to make it possible for Asiatics who leave the Transvaal to surrender their registration certificates. Very often an Indian wishes to leave the country for good, but no legal provision is made for him to surrender his certificate, and he may retain it, and we have found so far that it very often happens that he has sold it or made it over in some way to another Indian. The provision will now be made for the surrender in such cases in a legal manner of such certificates. Then there is a rather strange judgment— strange at least to the mind which has not got a legal bent—on the part of the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal. That is, that even if it has been conclusively shown that an Indian had obtained his registration certificate fraudulently, it cannot be cancelled, and the fact that it cannot be cancelled gives him the right to live and remain in the Transvaal. Now that, of course, is something which ought not to continue; therefore, we make provision that in future if it is shown to the satisfaction of an appeal board or before a court that a registration certificate has been obtained fraudulently it can be cancelled, and such Indians deported from the country.

What decision was that?

I cannot quote it, but I could tell later on. Then there are certain hard cases of Indians in the Transvaal which we would like to meet. The Indian Registration Act of the Transvaal provides that an Indian can be registered, when between the ages of 8 and 16 years, by his parents. Now, after he has become 16 years, that is to say, a major according to the special law, he must register within one year, but if he does not do so within that year, he cannot be registered at all, and must be deported from the Transvaal.

Is that a good law?

Generally it is a good law, and we do not propose to alter that. All we propose is in cases of real hardship—where it appears to the Minister that it is really not the fault of that Indian, the Minister can issue a registration certificate of domicile. It is only to give discretion to the Minister in cases of real hardship, which ought to have been provided for.

Where do these Indians come from that do not know the law?

Probably from Natal. Then there is a small amendment to the Chinese Exclusion Act of the Cape Province, which, as hon. members know, was passed at the time Chinese labourers were introduced into the Transvaal. The Cape took alarm, and wanted to protect itself. That Act provides that every Chinaman—and there are only 2,000 altogether in the Union, aria a great many fewer in the Cape Province—must be registered in the province. We do not propose to alter that, but the Act also provides that if a Chinaman should be convicted in a court of law for certain specified offences— amongst others, gambling—he must be deported from the country.

How about selling opium?

I think it is in the law—any offence. The Minister has no choice, and he must deport them. Only recently a case came before me which I thought a very hard one. An old Chinaman, I think 75 years of age, was convicted in a very trivial case—it was gambling. He had never been to China, or at any rate, the greater part of his life he lived in South Africa, and he had no relations oversea. The Minister had no choice whatever, but had to deport that man. The only alteration we now propose is to give the Minister the ordinary discretion he has in all other cases, and to give instructions, in such a case as I have mentioned, that the man shall not be deported. These cases will not occur very often, seeing that the number of Chinamen, especially in the/ Cape Province, is very small.

As the Minister has said, this is really a Bill to be discussed in committee, rather than on the second reading, because there is no principle running through it, and I want to touch only on a very few points, reserving anything else I want to say when we come into committee. The Minister told us that the Bill was making certain minor alterations in the Transvaal Asiatic Registration Act, but why does he repeal practically the whole of that Act? He also proposes to take power to cancel registration certificates obtained by fraud. That is eminently reasonable, and there is no objection to that. But the Minister might consider whether it is not possible that hardship might be inflicted in the cases of Indians who have been living here for several years, and who might have their registration cancelled and then be deported. It may be said that the certificates were obtained originally by something in the nature of a fraud. That, no doubt, is so. My experience in regard to Indians who come into the country unlawfully is that most of them are brought by some other Indian who wants to exploit their labour or to make a profit out of them. If they are not discovered, they may live here for years, but one day one of their country men tries to blackmail them by threatening to inform on them and have them sent out of the country. The Minister might think over this; question, now he has come to an agreement regarding immigration, whether it would not conduce to a favourable reception of his experiment, as I may call it, if something in the nature of an amnesty were given in regard to past acts. I do not think it would involve a very large number being kept who might otherwise be sent away, and it would give satisfaction if the fear hanging over a certain number of Indians were removed. I think it would be worth the Minister’s while if he drew a sponge over past offences of this nature. I think it is worth while to be generous about these matters, and I throw that suggestion out to the Minister. Another matter is in regard to the alteration in the Chinese Exclusion Act. I am glad the Minister is proposing to alter that provision of the law which was a provision of the old Cape Law which I proposed to alter in the old Class Areas Bill. It often leads to extreme hardship to men of the Chinese race who had settled in this country and had wives and children, and who, because they were found guilty of petty offences, were not only liable to deportation, but had to be deported. I found it caused extreme hardship, and I was not willing to exercise the power under the Act. I am glad the Minister is making the deportation optional instead of compulsory. With regard to the new definition of domicile, anyone absent from the country for three years will lose domicile under this Act, whether European or Asiatic, and the Minister says that in the case of Europeans it will not involve practical hardship. It may expose people to being debarred from re-admission if they have been away for more than three years. It is true the Minister may give a certificate which enables them to come back within ten years. The only other provision I mentioned is that with regard to persons suffering from tuberculosis. It is putting a serious burden on the shipping companies to say that they have to find out whether passengers are tubercular or not, and if they do not they are liable to the cost of taking them back within six months. This is a serious matter, and will act as a deterrent to shipping companies from bringing people to South Africa, because, unless they institute a strict medical examination before the passenger comes on board, I do not see how they can find out. They have a doctor on board, but the passenger may not visit the doctor, and they will not be able to find out unless they conduct a compulsory examination. That is a risk the Government must take. If the local officer who examines the passengers on coming here does not detect the case—

He cannot do it. It takes so much time.

Then how are the shipping companies going to do it? The Government must take the risk of tuberculosis, because people may come here suffering from a latent disease, and I think it is a serious burden to throw on the shoulders of the shipping companies when you make them take a risk. I do not think there is any other point I want to make. The other points, as I have said, can be dealt with in committee. I have no objection whatever to the second reading.

In regard to the provisions of this Bill relating to the amendment of the Immigrants Regulation Act, there are some clauses that are going to affect all immigrants alike, but one feels that it would be captious to raise criticism in view of the fact that the Bill is largely brought in to carry out the agreement which has been arrived at and for which both Governments deserve credit. Were it not for that, one would be inclined to criticize one or two Of the clauses, but one has to regard the Bill as a whole, and, although some of the clauses have no particular relation to the settlement, the Bill as a whole is an attempt to carry out, as far as legislation is required, the settlement which has been arrived at. There are some of these clauses in regard to which representations have been made to the Minister that are not at all clear. The Minister has not made a statement about them, but I hope he will do so. For instance, Clause 4 is not at all clear. It proposes to add certain words to the Act of 1913, but when they are read with the Act of 1913 it is difficult to understand what they mean. The words proposed to be added are—

Now if those words are added to the Act of 1913, three years will bring the date to 1916, and here we are legislating in 1927. These words are to be inserted as an addition to the Act of 1913, and they will be read in conjunction with that Act. Therefore, they will refer to persons born outside the Union brought here within three years from the date of birth, which will be a date that has long ago passed. If one looks at section 5 of the principal Act, one sees there what the Minister is attempting to legislate for. That section deals with persons who are allowed to come here, persons who are not prohibited immigrants, and one of the clauses deals with persons—

Unless something more is said, those words are so ambiguous that it is very difficult to see what they are intended to mean. One has to read these words also in connection with paragraph (g) of the principal Act. It seems to me that the apparent contradiction which occurs here must be the fault of draftsmanship. In regard to the family clauses that follow from the Imperial Conference resolution, the reciprocity resolution, I would like to say that there is one little anomaly which exists, and which at this stage it seems to me ought to be put right. Indians are not allowed to enter the Transkeian territories. There are only a very few there, a mere handful, but as the law at present stands, they are not allowed to have their wives there. It seems to me that that militates against the position the Minister has declared. There is the case of the South African born wife, the woman who has married a man in the Territories and has every moral right to be there, but is not allowed to join him there. At this stage, having recognized that it is the family that ought to be encouraged to settle in one place, that ought to be put right. The term “domicile” is referred to by the Minister. He should make provision, I think, in the case of persons who are absent from the Union to-day; people who have gone away under the existing law should be recognized. They may have been away for more than three years, and they may lose their rights, which, I take it, is not what the Minister intends. The Minister makes provision for the loss of domicile of a woman whose marriage has been dissolved during her absence. That may be a source of hardship. It says here that if a woman’s marriage is dissolved during her absence from the Union, she cannot come back. She may be a South African born woman. These are little points the Minister might well go into before he gets into committee, because otherwise I am afraid a good many cases of hardship may arise. Then, with reference to the Indians Relief Act in regard to the Indian who has children by a woman still alive. It is a great hardship where the marriage has been dissolved that a man should be treated as though he is still married. That position should not be a bar to any rights he should possess. With regard to these registration certificates obtained by fraud, I would like to support what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said. It seems to me that the person you want to get at is the person who introduced these people into the Union. The Minister spoke of organization, but I take it he does not mean associations, or anything of that sort, because I do not think there is any evidence of that. My information is that particular individuals are making money out of these false certificates, individuals who have been practically living by means of blackmail. With regard to the actual documents themselves, a very great hardship will be inflicted if as a result of this Act, you will get a sort of Star Chamber method of dealing with the proceedings of the last 20 years. It will cause tremendous unrest, and undo the good that has been done. I suggest to the Minister that he should be satisfied with the powers he has to deal with these people who have made money out of fraudulent certificates. I do not think anybody is going to object if the people who have done this sort of thing are deported. As the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said, it would not only be a just, but a graceful act, now that Mr. Sastri has been appointed, to grant a general amnesty which will lead to a willing co-operation amongst the members of the community to see that this sort of thing does not recur. If you do not want this sort of thing to occur, you should make a reciprocal arrangement with the Portuguese Government—not by legislation so much as by effective methods of co-operation with that Government. After a little conference between this Government and the Portuguese Government, you can easily stop people crossing the border, but without it, it is impossible to prevent people from crossing that enormous border. In regard to the. Chinese Exclusion Act of 1904, I am sorry the Minister did not repeal the whole of it. That was the time when Chinamen were being introduced into the Transvaal, and the Parliament of the Cape Colony passed that legislation to make it clear that none would come here. There are very few here, and the reason for that Act has now been taken away, because of your Immigrants Regulation Act. We do not require this special legislation anymore. I am glad the Minister has suggested an amendment giving him discretionary powers in the matter of deportation. At present the law is that in case of two convictions for minor offences, the offender must be deported. I know of cases, however, of a man having been convicted who has done no more in a Chinese club than many European persons do in their own clubs—having a mild gamble. Some of the offences are of the most trivial nature. Great hardships may arise regarding the loss of domicile, and the Minister might consider taking discretionary powers on this point. For the rest, I hope, as a result of this particular Bill, and of the arrival in this country of Mr. Sastri, there will we effective goodwill between the Governments of India and South Africa, and that in the long run people who now think that the Indian people have scored an advantage will realize that the agreement is in the very best interests of the Union. There are many Indians here who are trying to cause trouble because they think the Union Government has scored over the Indian Government. Sensible people, however, will say that a fair compromise has been arrived at to settle a difficult problem. I shall support the second reading of the Bill.

Perhaps this is not the time to go into details. I just wish to say briefly that I think there are certain points which possibly should be altered in committee, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to make alterations. I just want to say that our Government has entered into an agreement with India, but at the same time I want to express the hope that the Government quite appreciates and that the Government of India also appreciates the object of the South African people, which is that the Indians must disappear from the country. We hope that it will not take longer than a year or two to find out how things are going. We want to be fair towards the Indians, but I hope also they will appreciate that on their side also they must be honest. They are depriving our young South African lads of the openings which they would otherwise find in trade. The Government of India must help us to get rid of the evil, otherwise we shall be much disappointed, and of course then have to take stronger measures than to-day. Things cannot go on as in the past. We have enough big and difficult problems, and cannot permit another great question to be added. I do not believe that at the moment much can be done with the Indians who are trading, but I hope that in this connection also stronger measures may be taken. There are laws which can be carried out which may provide a solution in certain cases, but we cannot permit the Indians in our country to take away the business from our sons. Our sons cannot compete with the Indians, and are squeezed out. I hope and believe that the agreement will appear a solution, but if it appears after 12 months or so not to be a proper solution, or that the Indians are not faithfully doing their share, then steps must be taken to introduce legislation.