Although it is late in the session, I introduce it now, so that there will be time to consider the Bill during the recess.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 17th May.

I move—

It is a great pleasure to me to introduce this motion, because it is certainly one of the most reasonable which has ever been before this House. We remember the shipping strike of 1925. The fruit arrived from the interior, was held up here, and a great part of it went bad here, and the farmers suffered considerable damage. Notwithstanding that, the Railway Department decided to charge railway rates on the rejected fruit at the high tariff, viz., the local rate, which is about 1s. per box from the Transvaal, instead of the lower or export tariff. We do not say in the motion that the rates paid to the railways should be repaid or written off, but all we ask is—and this the citrus farmers regard as fair and right—that the export rate, instead of the local rate, should be charged for those consignments. It may possibly be said that if fruit which is sent here for export is rejected and then put on the local market, it will spoil the local market. I want to mention that that does not apply in this case. That fruit, I am speaking principally of the fruit sent from the districts of Marico, Rustenburg and Koster, was inspected before being sent here and approved by a qualified inspector. I also want to point out that an additional 7,945 boxes were condemned. The remaining boxes were therefore approved, sent to Cape Town, lay in a heap there, and subsequently, when some of them by the handling began to go off, were repacked, and this repacking cost the farmers 2s. a box, although the repacked boxes were subsequently also condemned, so that the farmers not only suffered the loss on the fruit, but also had to pay for the repacking. Therefore the motion is a fair one, viz., that the farmers who have lost about £50,000 as a result of the shipping strike shall be repaid the difference in railway rates between the higher and the lower tariff. The farmers do not ask for the writing-off of the railway charges, but they say that their fruit was approved, that they sent it to the Cape Town docks with the most honourable intentions, that it became bad owing to the strike and was condemned, and that eventually they still had to pay the railways, who relied upon their regulations, the highest railway rate, viz., the local rate. I think that it is unfair in a case where the farmers have lost thousands of pounds, that the railways should now come and make as much money as possible out of the poor farmers. Accordingly I have introduced the motion, and I hope the Minister and the House will accept it. There are always many members here who stand up as representatives of the farmers. I should like to see how they will vote to-day. There is no other way for the farmers to make up things in this connection, because the shipping contracts provide that if there is a strike, the farmers cannot hold them responsible for damages. That is a defect in the shipping contracts which is deplorable. Who suffers in consequence? The farmers. And we come here as farmers to the House with a reasonable request, and I hope the whole House will agree that the small amount—I do not think it can be more than about £2,000—should be refunded to the farmers.

I second the motion. I regard the motion as quite reasonable because there is no doubt the citrus farmers have suffered much damage. They could not help it but they nevertheless had afterwards to pay practically twice the export railway rate. The co-operative society in my district sent boxes of oranges from Mossel Bay to Cape Town, but after the fruit had been delayed three weeks it could not be exported, and the society subsequently received an account for the difference between the export and the local rate, which was more than the amount already paid under the export rate. I go further and say that the railway administration should consider whether all the rates cannot be revised. It is most unfair when the citrus farmers have sent away their oranges for export that they then have to pay a higher rate when the oranges are condemned in the port. The fact that the oranges have been condemned is sufficient loss because usually oranges are actually given away at a price which does not pay the expense of the boxes and the packing paper. The farmers not only lose on account of the condemnation, but have to take more money out of their pockets to pay the higher local rate. It was said some time ago that the citrus market was unlimited, and as a result of that many citrus trees were planted. To-day, however, the farmers find that the market is not unlimited, and if something is not done to reduce the expense of citrus export then the whole citrus industry will suffer in consequence. To show how much the farmers get I want to refer to the statement of the Rustenburg Co-operative Society. The members of the society last year received on the average 15s. 7¼d. per box on the London market, but the export costs were 9s. 5½d. so that the grower received a balance of about 6s. 1d. From that has to be deducted interest on capital, preparation of the boards, packing costs, and industrial expenditure, and hon. members can therefore see that with these high expenses it is practically impossible for the citrus farmers to make a living. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in his speech on the budget referred to the White River Estates where the ground was practically given away for nothing, although planted with fruit trees. I think the hon. member must agree that the expense in connection with the export of fruit is altogether too high. People cannot invest their money in citrus farming because they do not know what is going to happen. If oranges are sold for 12s. or 12s. 6d. on the London market then it will be an impossible industry. Therefore, I want to urge the Government and the Railway Department to consider making the cost of citrus export as little as possible. The annual report of the Transvaal Citrus Exchange shows that a sum of £70,000 was paid to local agents alone on the 602,000 boxes which were exported. Is it a wonder then that people are afraid to invest their money in ground for the purpose of citrus growing. As we already have millions of trees in the country the question of high costs must be considered, so that steps can be taken to make the industry a success. The citrus farmers have to compete on the world market against the growers in California and Australia, but the high export costs make it practically impossible. Now the railway administration comes and lays an extra charge on the fruit which for some reason or other is condemned in the port instead of specially reducing the tariff to meet the farmers. The increase amounts to 50 per cent. of the export tariff and I regard that as very unreasonable. Therefore, I support the motion.

I will commence by saying that I am very sympathetic towards the farmers concerned in the motion which is before the House to-day. Without doubt these people had a bad time during last season. They packed their oranges properly, sent them to the docks, they were passed by the inspectors, and put into cold storage so far as there was accommodation, but as a result of the shipping strike the farmers suffered much damage. Eventually the oranges were taken out of cold storage and sold on the local market. I want, therefore, to say at once that I sympathize with the people in connection with what the hon. member has said, but if we were to agree to accept this motion I fear we should be creating a dangerous precedent. Hon. members must bear in mind that the tariff for export of fruit is based on a much lower calculation than the tariff for fruit consumed in South Africa. If we were to permit that when fruit was carried at the export rate and was delayed in the docks in consequence of a strike or of bad packing or what not, if we, I say, were to allow such fruit from the Transvaal or the Free State to be sold in the local market and to only charge the usual export rate then we should take away the whole geographical advantage of the farmers of the Western Province, the South Western Districts and of the Eastern Province. Will the Transvaal farmers be prepared to give up the geographical advantage of Rustenburg, Zeerust, Barberton, etc., in reference to the Johannesburg market for the benefit of the Eastern or the Western Province? Would they not be dissatisfied if their geographical advantage with relation to the Johannesburg market were done away with? But the Western Province and the environs of Cape Town have the same right, and I see the great danger of a precedent which would make the position impossible, and therefore I do not see my way to accepting the motion. As to creating a precedent, we had not only to do with fruit, but, e.g., also with maize and mealie meal. If the maize is carried at the lower export rates and then sold in the local market then we shall get strong protests from the people who produce mealie meal here. In the circumstances I cannot accept the motion. I will only say that no one here can be held responsible for the strike, neither the Government nor the exporters.

Why must the farmers pay for it?

If the hon. member had requested that the Department of Agriculture should take into favourable consideration the question on compensation for losses there would possibly have been something to say for it, but on what ground does he insist on relief from the Department of Railways? The railways are common carriers and how can the hon. member then ask that department for compensation to the farmers?

I do not ask compensation but fairness.

But on what right does the hon. member come to the Department of Railways with the simple request that the rates which are in accordance with the geographical advantages of the country should simply be disregarded? I ask the hon. member again whether he is prepared to sacrifice the geographical advantages of Rustenburg and all those districts in favour of the Western Province?

That has nothing to do with it?

It has everything to do with it. The fruit arrived here, was not exported and was sold in the local market, and what my friend asks is that the fruit which was sold here in the local market should have been carried at such a rate that they could compete on the local market.

They were given away here, not sold.

If that occurred in some cases it is regrettable, but then the responsibility does not lie with the railways that they were not sooner taken out of cold storage.

We could not get a contract sooner.

The hon. member can surely not blame the Railway Department for that. But I want to point out a further great danger if the principle were to be accepted here. Then all maize or mealie meal which was sent to the coast—

That has nothing to do with the point.

But the Government could not stop the strike. If it was a case of responsibility of the State for the strike then that could be argued. But I want to point out a further danger of such a precedent. It would mean that the necessary care would no longer be given to proper packing, because the people would argue that they were sending their stuff to Cape Town for export and if it were condemned it could anyhow be sold in the local market. Then they would know that if the fruit were condemned that it could then immediately be sold in the local market, and that they need only pay the export rate to the railways.

No one would ever do that.

If it is possible people will certainly do it. If they can get the advantage of the lower rates it will certainly occur. The whole scheme of the export rate is to assist the farmers to sell their produce in the oversea market. We must not create any precedent by which ports of shipment would get towns into difficulty in regard to their markets, and create an intolerable position. With regard to the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) about the general position, we shall possibly have an opportunity on another occasion of going into it. I do not know whether it actually comes under this motion, but I just want to say that as a matter of fact the costs of export are exceptionally high though prices are dropping. What the reason is I cannot at the moment go into, but one thing is certain, viz., that the exporter should give more attention to the extension of markets.

Abolish the Export Control Board.

If the hon. member knew anything about the position he would know that the board of control has nothing to do with the marketing. In the circumstances I am sorry that I cannot accept the motion.

Under ordinary circumstances I think the House would agree with what the Minister has said—that there should be no confusion between export rates, to allow our produce to be put on the markets of the world, and the rates on produce for internal consumption. But it looks to me that the Minister has forgotten entirely the object which moved my hon. friend to put his resolution on the paper, because the unfortunate position in which the citrus growers found themselves was not due to any fault of themselves, but was owing to the fact that the fruit shipped at export rates, as a result of the strike, could not be put on board. The position really is that the railway department, in this particular case, were making a profit out of the unfortunate position of the citrus growers of the northern provinces, because, had that strike not taken place, all that the railways could claim was the export rate, but owing to the strike having taken place, the railways claimed the whole rate. That would have been justified if the fruit had been found unfit to go overseas. This was an entirely different thing. The Minister must realize that the loss the farmers sustained has not been discussed for the first time in this House. In 1925 the Minister and his colleagues were told that if they did not take up a firmer attitude, they would do a great injustice to the producers. In spite of that, they provided a camp at Wynberg and the present Minister of Defence, then the Minister of Labour, had an opportunity of interviewing the men.

And encouraging them.

I will not go so far as that, but my hon. friend and his associates went as far as they could to encourage the men in the attitude they adopted. Did not the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) march through the streets with a deputation of these people? Did he not, if my memory serves me, visit these people at the camp at Wynberg, and was it not said—

At the same time, under the pressure which came from my hon. friends over there [Labour members] the Prime Minister was communicating with the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, and telling him that if the strike came there, if he did not interfere, we would not buy sleepers in Australia anymore? In fact, the Prime Minister was extremely anxious to assist the sleeper sellers of Australia.

I am afraid the right hon. member is getting away from the motion.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that my reason for telling the Minister to agree to the reasonable motion made by my hon. friend is that it would be unnecessary to make that motion had the Government done their duty and stepped in, and not interfered with men manning the ships and with farmers loading fruit on the ships. I have a perfect right, I think, to use that argument as having a tendency to soften the heart of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who is a member of the Cabinet that refused to do their duty in the shipping crisis of 1925.

The right hon. member may refer to these things, but we should not have the strike of 1925 debated.

I am not dealing with the strike, Mr. Speaker. The redress, if the hon. member secures it, will go a little way indeed to meet the loss sustained by these producers of citrus fruit. Some of the fruit had to be repacked, and they had to pay 2s. a case. It is well within the memory of many hon. members that that fruit was practically given away on the Parade in Cape Town, and not only did these farmers suffer considerable loss, but the Western Province also suffered loss owing to the disorganization of the local market as a result of this stuff being thrown upon it. The Government should show a little contrition for the attitude they adopted in 1925. The Railway Department added insult to injury by asking these growers to pay extra money. It would be only a small amount of justice to reimburse these people.

I move, as an amendment—

I am sorry the Minister cannot give his approval to the motion, and, therefore, I want to ask him whether he cannot agree to the amendment.

So you do not want the strike to be mentioned?

The hon. member does not quite understand the position.

You said last year that the farmers had suffered no damage in consequence of the shipping strike.

The hon. member is not properly informed in the matter. I admit that at the moment there is a lack of official figures, but I am certain that I may say that not more than one-fifth of the damage suffered by the exporters without their own fault was due to the docks strike. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) next to me is also doubtful about it. It is difficult for me to produce all the proofs, but of the 31,000 boxes from a certain district, I know of only 4,000 that were condemned as a result of the strike. One-fifth was said to be too small, and we may put it at one-eighth. The other boxes were condemned for other reasons. In the first place the year was very bad owing to the fact that the fruit had too much water.

You cannot give fruit too much water.

The hon. member knows nothing about it. He has apparently never yet heard of the expression used in the trade that fruit is “water logged.” A great deal of the fruit which is exported had too much water in consequence of late rains during the previous summer, and I can speak with a certain amount of authority, because I saw some of the fruit loaded here and arriving in England. I can, therefore, judge better than the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius).

Is that the report of your visit overseas?

Hon. members must permit the hon. member to proceed.

The fact is that there were various causes through which the exporters, without any responsibility of their own, suffered great damage in 1925, and I can put the damage suffered owing to the dock strike at one-eight thereof.

Why should the Government now suffer the damage?

I do not advocate that the Government itself should pay the damage, but I plead for the people being met. Packing was done at two places in my constituency; one at Brits by the co-operative society, and the society is to-day still in difficulties, and we have to work hard and encourage the people to induce them to keep the society going. At De Wildt a private undertaking lost some thousands of pounds. Last year not a single box was sent from De Wildt. Now I ask the Minister if it is not worthy of his consideration, and if things cannot be done in such a way that we restart the fruit export. I admit that there were also other causes such as, e.g., that the packing in some cases was not well done, but at the coast there were also matters which contributed to causing the damage. There was, e.g., no cooling before the fruit was loaded. I know that in Durban fruit is shipped at a temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or more, into the hold in which cold air is pumped. The result was that the boxes cooled down on the sides of the hold, but that never happened inside. When one reaches England one feels ashamed and hurt because there are rotten and mouldy oranges in the boxes which have to be thrown away. Now that we know that our future as fruit farmers depends on the export trade, and that there is an unlimited market in England and on the Continent provided we export correctly, I want to ask the Minister whether it is not worthy of consideration that the farmers who received a knock in 1925 should be assisted by the accepting of my amendment to prevent their being ruined. I should like to point out to the Minister that he said that a principle was being laid down, viz., that fruit intended for export condemned here and not exported is carried at the local rate, and not at the export rate. The Minister now fears that the principle will be abolished. We know that the difference between the two rates is great. From Pretoria the export rate is 8d., while the local rate is 1s. 6d. It is not laying down a principle, but only granting an urgent request to assist the farmers who suffered severely in 1925, and to give them a chance to get on their feet again.

It is a matter which should be brought to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture.

If the Minister thinks that it is a matter concerning the Minister of Agriculture then it does not make much difference to us. It is the same to us whether it comes from the brother or the sister as long as we get the money. I think my amendment is reasonable, and I hope I shall obtain the support of the Minister, because the word 1925 is maintained. I acknowledge that there must be an enquiry by the Department of Agriculture, but is it too much trouble to make an enquiry to see that the farmers get on their feet again so that they can organize export? We are glad about the splendid cold storage accommodation which is being built, but our gratitude will be greater if the Minister will support my amendment.

I second the amendment. I think that it is fair that the exporter in this case should receive compensation.

The mover bases his plea for consideration on the losses sustained in consequence of the seamen’s strike. I very much sympathize with the farmers who sustained losses. Hon. members opposite are very fond of saying that South African interests should come before those of overseas. But what was their attitude when the seamen’s strike was discussed? They were silent on the question. We claimed that the strike was bound to influence this country adversely, and that we should suffer very seriously in consequence. In reply to these arguments the Minister of Defence assured the House that the farmers would lose nothing directly from the strike. Then we had the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) leading processions of strikers. The only member on the Government side who took up a correct attitude on the matter was the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). Hon. members opposite should realize that they themselves are very largely responsible for the losses which the South African farmers sustained.

The Labour party did not cause the seamen’s strike.

You encouraged it.

Hon. members cannot go into the details of the strike.

I want to point out that if the strike was responsible for any losses that was not the fault of the Government.

The fault of the Labour party.

Nor was it the fault of the Labour party. Do hon. members on the Opposition side believe that the sailors were receiving a living wage?

When I was addressing the House the same question arose and Mr. Speaker recognized that the strike was a legitimate subject for discussion owing to the wording of the motion.

I understand that Mr. Speaker ruled that hon. members may refer casually to the strike, but are not allowed to go into the details of it.

Had the strike been handled with the firm hand and mailed fist of the leader of the Opposition the losses incurred by the South African farmers would have been 100 times greater than they were, and the Union would have been plunged into a tremendous upheaval. The Government deserves the thanks of the country in that the strike was settled peaceably. If hon. members on that side of the House believe that the only way to handle a strike is to bring out the forces of the country and shoot the strikers down, let them say so. I challenge members on that side of the House to say what they would have done had they been in power.

They would have gaoled the agitators.

It is the policy of gaoling the agitators and suppressing these things by force which is creating Bolsheviks in the world to-day. It is entirely wrong to blame the Government for the strike, and to use this matter for party political propaganda is wrong. If the strike had been handled by the same methods as they have been handled in South Africa in the past the losses of the farmers would have been much greater. As it was the farmers came out very well. They should be thankful that the present Government was in power and handled it as they did. We were not responsible for the strike, and we do not hear a word about the capitalist shipping companies who employed these men on a miserable pittance month by month. During the war these seamen were held up as heroes, but in time of peace they are described as scoundrels and Bolsheviks by the same gentlemen who, in a week or two, when we discuss the flag, will be waving the flag.

I regret this matter is being debated in a party spirit, because I do not see how it will help the farmers. The point has been raised about responsibility for the strike. If the Opposition wanted that matter debated they should have put it down as a substantive motion. If they think the Government was responsible for creating the strike and continuing it, why did they not take the ample time available to table a motion? This question is raised in a perfectly fair form without our going into the question of the responsibility for the strike. Hon. members opposite have not gone so far as to say that the Government was responsible for the strike, but their effort to drag this in seems more in eagerness to damage the Government than eagerness to help the farmers. It is unnecessary to debate the rights and wrongs of the strike in order to adopt this motion and get sympathetic treatment for the farmers by combining to urge on the Government to agree to what is asked for in the motion. This question is not dependent on who was responsible for creating or continuing the strike. I put it to the Minister that it is an ordinary case of a contract between A and B. B undertakes to carry the fruit at a certain rate, but owing to a cataclysm, which neither party had anything to do with, the fruit was not exported. B then says that he was agreeable to accept the contract, but inasmuch as the cataclysm occurred he is going to take advantage of it to demand more for carrying that fruit. The Government undertook to carry the fruit at a set rate, but owing to the strike the fruit was not exported and the Railway Department turns round and says: “Pay more money.” It is an unfair position to take up. Any honourable commercial man not wishing to take advantage of the misfortune would say: “You did your best to carry out the contract, and I am not going to charge more than the export rate,” and surely the Railway Department will put itself in the position of a high-minded business man. The Railway Department does not suffer because they contracted to take the fruit to Cape Town at the export rate. The other man suffers very much because, had it been exported, he would have got a profit on the London market. Now you want to add to his suffering by compelling him to pay more for the export. If people had sent their fruit to Cape Town at the rate for export, and then changed their minds and sold it in Cape Town, the Minister would have been right in saying that they could not take advantage of the export rate under those circumstances. We all look upon the strike as a disaster to all concerned. I do not like strikes, but they are inevitable until you get the proper industrial machinery and a better trust between the men and the employers. I hope the Minister will realize the fruit farmer is in no sense responsible in any way, and why then should this terrible loss fall on the fruit farmer? Is it not fairer to spread the burden over the whole users of the railway? I cannot see how the Minister would be creating a precedent. It is not a precedent when it is an unusual thing that may only occur once in twenty years. I think the Minister would have the whole country behind him in saying that it is not fair to take advantage of the fruit farmers because of this strike. This motion should not be debated on party lines at all. It is a case of one section of the community being penalized instead of the penalty being spread over the whole community. Whatever is said of the individual members of the Government parties and how they showed their sympathy, and remember there was a great deal of public sympathy with the strikers, the Government itself did everything possible to bring the strike to an early termination by various efforts. If the responsibility rests on all of us, let the whole community bear the burden. Even if the motion is carried the losses of these unfortunate farmers are enormous, and by this motion you are seeing to it not to pile on further loss. That is all it means. I should like to support it, because on occasions like this men who represent urban areas can show their sympathy with the farmers.

The real point of objection to the resolution was made clear by the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) got unjustifiably warm with regard to the remarks made. He suggested that we, on this side, would have shot them down that remark is rubbish, and is stale now. What we should have done was to allow the farmers to load the ships, and we should have allowed the shipping companies to enrol temporary crews. The farmers themselves were begging to be allowed to go and load the ships, and to take them overseas. I should not have shot these men, but if I had been in the Government I should have said to the men: “Look here, you started your voyage under a contract; it is up to you to finish it under that contract. Instead of that you allowed these snips to start from the ports, and then you left men and women and children living here for weeks on end on the ships, when every week’s delay meant distress and comparatively heavy losses to these people.”

Who was to blame for it?

The men who should have fulfilled the contract which they entered upon at the beginning of their voyage. I can support the motion as moved, but I cannot for one moment support the amendment. This amendment is merely a subterfuge to get out of the difficulty, and that is the admission we now have in this motion and speeches from the Nationalist benches, that the strike did cost the farmers money losses. It was said, when the debate took place on the strike, by members opposite and by Ministers that there was no loss to the country.

One-eighth only.

Don’t let us split hairs. The hon. member who moved this motion has stated that there was a loss to citrus growers of £50,000 through the strike. I agree with him. That is the minimum loss through the strike. If we support the amendment, which states “owing to circumstances beyond the control of the exporters,” we open the door exceedingly wide. If you stick to a specific reason, and that is the reason given openly and manfully by the mover, namely, “owing to the shipping strike,” I say that I can support it, but if you open wide the door by saying that it was “beyond the control of the exporters,” you are laying the whole question open to discussion and controversy each time losses are sustained.

You don’t want to compensate the seven-eighths.

I am not a statistician; I am merely a plain, common-sense person. I realize that certain things have been done, that certain losses have been sustained, and that we have here an anomalous case where men forwarded their stuff at a low rate for export and, owing to the strike and the strike only, the stuff was prevented from being exported, and therefore I think it is quite reasonable to ask the railways to refund to the senders the difference in the rates. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) spoke about a precedent. I agree with the hon. member that if the terms of the original motion as moved are adhered to, it will not be a precedent.

I did not support the amendment.

All right, as long as we are quite clear on that point that the amendment is of no use at all, I welcome immensely the admission at this late hour from the benches opposite that something might have been done to minimize those losses, and that they were caused by the strike, and by the strike only.

In the first place, this is essentially, I would have thought, an agricultural matter, and yet the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place. I should have thought he would have been here to support the farmers in this matter, and see that justice is done to them. There is not a single Minister on the Treasury benches except the Minister of Railways. It certainly does one good, I must say, to hear the confession of the Minister in this matter, that enormous damage was done, and also the confession of the mover of this motion and those who have spoken in support of it, that enormous damage was done by the strike. When we brought this matter forward— and the hon. member for Hanover Street cannot say it was not brought forward some two years ago when we had a debate on it—

Not by a proper motion.

At any rate, it was discussed. I want to point out the difference between the attitude taken up on the other side and the Minister on that occasion, and the attitude taken up by those hon. gentlemen now. Then it was said that no damage had been done, while now it is confessed that a large amount of damage had been done. They now come for, I won’t say compensation, but some assistance in one form or another, and I think the plea which has been put forward in that regard is a very strong one. Of course, this just shows the farmers of this country what they are paying for the alliance with those people on the cross benches. Anybody who reflects and sees the trend of things will realize that this was a case where you had to pay the cost of the alliance with the cross benches. It is not the first time it has occurred that they have had to pay for the alliance on the other side. They have had to pay for it several times. They have had to pay for it on the buildings on their farms. The result was that the Minister of Justice has stepped in, and he has made an alteration in the administration of the law.

On a point of order, is the hon. member discussing the strike instead of this motion?

If my hon. friend does not like to hear this, I am sorry, but it is the solid truth. This was a strike of shipping in South African ports. I was here all the time, and I remember well that it was the opinion of men connected with shipping in this port that, had this strike been firmly handled, it would never have lasted anything like so long. The shipowners were not allowed to take on men to replace the strikers, nor were they allowed to prosecute men who had broken their contracts. They could not take on men to handle the ships and take them back to the European ports. They were practically prevented from taking these necessary steps, steps which our Government did not hesitate to take in Australia with their ships. The Minister of Labour came down to this port and—

Order. I do not think the hon. member can discuss the strike on this motion.

I am only trying to show that this strike need not have gone on anything like so long and the farmers need not have suffered in regard to their export of fruit if the situation had been properly handled. The whole motion is based on the strike. I say that the Government themselves are to blame for the extent of damage done by the strike. The Minister of Labour, when he came to Cape Town, placed obstacles in the way of the shipowners putting an end to the strike. Further, there were certain members on the cross benches who actually encouraged the strike. Take, for instance, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow).

He will do it again.

I have not the slightest doubt. Take the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) and the Labour party generally; they encouraged the men who were on strike. They encouraged the men to keep out and to hold out as long as they could. Now we are getting at the truth in regard to this matter. When we brought it up two years ago there was no damage being suffered. The truth has gradually forced itself out. Hon. members have to come here and confess that a large amount of damage has been done in regard to this matter. What are they getting from the Minister? Sympathy. Sympathy is a good stock-in-trade; it does not cost anything, it is cheap. But how is it going to compensate the fruit-growers? Does it pay their debts? Does it pay the cost of their labour in growing the fruit? Not a sixpence. Not one iota. It is the stock-in-trade of the Minister. He is always pouring out an ample supply. I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I think the Government ought to come to the assistance of these growers. These men sent down their stuff for shipment. It was not their fault that it could not be shipped. It was the fault of the strike, which we think the Government might have ended considerably earlier than was the case. I could understand and support the Minister if he refused any remission of rates, because of bad packing, or because of the stuff being unsuitable for export. That would be justifiable, naturally, but when there is no fault on their part at all, when they sent their stuff in a bona fide manner, how can you refuse to meet them? I do not think it is possible. I will certainly support the motion of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar). I think the growers should be met in this case.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has made such a speech and’ now wants to make out that we, who are in favour of this motion and admit the fairness of it— that the people should be compensated with reference to certain rates which were paid by them on fruit that was not exported—now admit that the Government was responsible for the shipping strike. It is surely not in the very least an admission of it. The fruit growers sent fruit for export, and a certain rate was charged. The fruit arrived, but in consequence of the strike was not exported. It was not our strike, but a strike of the British seamen. It was not a strike of South Africa, no strike of our nation. Why then do hon. members try to put the responsibility for it on to our shoulders? I cannot understand it. Our party did not say that the fruit growers had had no loss, and we will gladly assist them, but now the Railway Department comes and says—

That is correct, but it was not the fault of those producers either. Therefore, I think it would be quite fair if the Railway Department in the circumstances did not charge the additional amount of the difference in tariff. Then the loss would be a little divided. But if hon. members there represent the matter in such a way that if we vote for the motion we admit that the Government was to blame in connection with the strike, then I shall not vote for it.

I am surprised at the last speaker. When the matter of the shipping strike was before the House everyone on the opposite side stated that absolutely no damage had been caused by it to the farmers. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost), who held himself out as such an important representative of farmers, said that the farmers had suffered no damage. He comes from a constituency from which the farmers sent thousands of boxes to Durban which, as a result of the strike, came back again, and in consequence whereof the people lost thousands of pounds. Last year he knew nothing about it. To-day he comes and wants to support the motion. I am glad that the hon. members are waking up.

Look at my amendment.

What is the amendment? He wants to gull the farmers by the amendment that the strike was not the cause of their loss. I still state that if it were not for the strike there would have been no loss.

Look at the figures which I gave.

The hon. member said that the farmers only lost one-fifth to one-eighth.

May I explain a little to the hon. member?

I shall not give way. The hon. member had his opportunity. What he said was that the farmers had lost one-fifth, and he went further and said that they lost one-eighth.

I did not say so.

His constituency adjoins mine, and I say that the farmers in some cases lost their entire harvest of from £700 to £800.

To a point of order. I do not want—

The hon. member cannot rise to a point of explanation unless the hon. member gives way.

The hon. member does not want to know the truth.

I know the facts; the oranges were sent to Durban by farmers, but got no further, and were sent back to Pretoria and put on the market there. And what did the farmers get? Not enough to pay for the packing and the freight there and back. The farmers suffered much damage, and I am glad that there is now an awakening amongst the members opposite.

We are always awake.

The hon. member probably hoped in his heart that the strike would continue, just as the Government to a certain extent encouraged it. When we produced the facts and figures here in the House we were laughed at and told that we were producing facts which were not correct. To-day the hon. members come themselves and say that damage was suffered. I shall support the motion with all my influence, and I think that the Railway Department should repay the difference between the export rate, 8½d., and the local rate. Then the question of the establishing of a precedent was raised. What happened in the House last year. It was then decided to rebuild the Trades Hall in Benoni which was burnt down in consequence of the revolution, and the Government made £5,000 available for the purpose.

It was malicious destruction.

We are coming here merely for £2,000 for the farmers, because it will not be much, and now the Minister refuses because it would be laying down a precedent. Many worse precedents have already been laid down. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) also states that the farmers suffered absolutely no damage as the result of the strike. He now says the middleman suffered the loss. No, the farmers suffered it. I am sorry that the hon. mover did not go a little further and did not introduce a more general motion, and not one merely with reference to the railways. Then his attempt to assist the farmers would be more appreciated. Much damage was suffered.

That is all I can bring up against the railways.

That is just why I say that the motion ought to be more comprehensive.

Then the hon. member can vote for my amendment.

No, because the hon. member wants to create the impression that the damage was not due to the strike, but to bad packing and handling by the farmers. That is not fair. The hon. member is acting unfairly towards his constituency if he puts the blame on the farmers there. He spoke about too much water in the oranges. Is the hon. member able to tell a citrus farmer how to lead water? The hon. member knows nothing about it. He cannot teach the farmers beyond the Magaliesberg. He made a report about the mildew of dried-up oranges. Does the hon. member not yet know that when oranges dry up they no longer go mouldy? The fact that they are mouldy shows that there is still dampness in the oranges.

The hon. members of the Opposition now state that we said last year that the farmers had suffered no damage as a result of the strike. I say it is not true that we said so. People in my constituency suffered damage, and I said myself at meetings that damage had been suffered, and that I was very sorry, but that it was not our fault that the English seamen went on strike. Did hon. members want us to shoot the people? We did not say that no damage had been suffered.

I should like to say one word in support of this motion, because it seems to me an overwhelming case has been made out. The facts are that farmers sent down a large quantity of fruit for export, and when it arrived it could not be exported. The result was the railway applied the ordinary rule in cases of fruit which comes down and is not passed by the inspector, which cannot be shipped and is sold here. But there is a totally different state of affairs here. In this case there is no question whatever that the farmers who sent their fruit down were in any way to blame. The Government say they were not to blame for the strike. But the strike took place, and the farmers were penalized. It does seem to me extremely hard that the railways should, so to speak, add insult to injury and charge them the rate they would have to pay after condemnation of the fruit, if that had been due to bad packing and in any other way due to the negligence of the farmer. The Government has a considerable measure of responsibility. There may be differences of opinion as to what the Government should have done in connection with the strike and the manner in which they handled it, but there is no doubt that the strike was supported and encouraged by a considerable section of the Government’s followers. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) admitted it. He said—

There is not the slightest doubt he would, and so would some of my hon. friends there. [Labour members.] There is a certain measure of responsibility on the Government which has control over its followers, and that constitutes an additional reason why the claims of the fruit growers, who suffered through no fault of their own, should be met. I agree with the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that the motion in its original form is better than the amendment, and I hope the motion will be carried.

We cannot but deplore the lines which this debate has followed this afternoon. Everybody certainly feels very much for the unfortunate farmers who suffered damage in consequence of the shipping strike of 1925, but I think the farmers themselves will appreciate that the form of the debate is not intended to assist them, and that there is no intention of supporting the introducer of the motion. It is as clear as daylight that the support which the hon. mover is getting has no other object than the making of political capital out of the motion and of doing harm to the Government. When the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) get up to defend the interests of the farmers then the latter appreciate that they are not their real supporters. We are sorry for the damage that has been suffered and would like to assist the farmers. Take the motion as it stands, however, in which the Minister of Railways and his department are asked to give their assistance and to refund the difference between the export and the local rates, then we see that the railway administration are governing the railways according to certain laws and regulations. If fruit is taken out of cold storage and is not shipped then, ipso facto, the higher rate is charged. If the payment of the higher rate is required by the regulations what argument are we to use to compel the railway administration to refund the difference. There is not a regulation which justifies the Minister in doing it, and he can only do it on the basis of a gratuity to the farmers who have suffered loss. Although in ordinary circumstances when the Treasury can contribute I would adopt a different attitude, I must, seeing that we recently had a debate in which the Opposition complained against the Minister and his department because casually there was a deficit in the railway accounts for the last financial year, take up a different attitude to-day. The Opposition also repeatedly quoted from the report of the Auditor-General, and tried to prove that the Government was guilty of an offence. Now I ask the Opposition a simple question. If the Minister should adopt the proposal and the Auditor-General should next year rightly mention that such a step had been taken, who will then be the first to use the argument that something wrong had been done if there were again a deficit? We all deplore the losses suffered, and I accept that those who oppose the motion feel just as deeply about it as hon. members who support it. When, however, we remember the facts it cannot be acceded to unless the grant is regarded as a gratuity. If that is done then the Minister and we who support it are liable to be condemned by the Auditor-General. In the circumstances I think that the Minister’s attitude is quite right. As one who has the honour of representing farmers I feel that it is especially unfair to make an attack on the Government with regard to an accident for which it was not responsible. If we go on the principle that the State should suffer the loss—which I do not want to admit —then I cannot agree with it that the railway administration should suffer the loss. Although I regret the loss I shall support the Minister in the attitude he has adopted.

I shall support the motion, and I must say that I cannot subscribe to the argument of the last speaker. He states that the Auditor-General will disapprove of such an expenditure, but the hon. member surely knows that that cannot be done after the passing of a resolution by Parliament. If the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) was wrong in asking the Minister for repayment and if the request should have been made to the Minister of Agriculture we are sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here to say that he is prepared to make the payment. The Minister must say that he knows what the position is and how much loss was suffered, and he must acknowledge that the growers sent their fruit in good condition to the ports. If it was not suitable for export then it never would have been put into cold storage. After their fruit was sent to the ports there was the shipping strike over which they had no control and that caused the trouble. I am prepared to support the motion.

I fear that hon. members on this side of the House are taking the members of the Opposition too seriously. I must assume that the members of the Opposition are worried owing to their chances of political progress being very small, because otherwise they would not have started such a tremendous agitation with regard to the flag. We must not take it amiss in them for touching on the question of fruit as well. I just want to tell the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) that when it is a question of sympathy for the farmers there is no need for me to take a back place to him. Why are the Opposition suddenly concerned about the farmers now that an hon. member from this side has tabled a motion? Why did they not introduce such a motion last year or this year? Are we not justified in saying that their speeches are nothing but hypocrisy?

They are not hypocritical.

It is not only I that see through it but also every farmer outside. They possibly see through it even better than I do. What caused the trouble?

The strike.

Did the Government strike?

How did you vote?

The matter was never before Parliament or before the public outside. We had no say in the matter. What is worse it was not a South African strike because the strikers were all people from overseas. Hon. members opposite have always boasted that they represented the feelings of overseas people and we have never yet done so. If there was a party which could do anything then it was the hon. members opposite. If they have no more influence on the overseas people then in Heaven’s name I wonder where they have any influence.

In Natal.

No. In Natal their influence is much less than they think. They know that and therefore they are making such a fuss about the flag. The farmers used formerly also to suffer loss. When there were plenty of mealies in the country the late Government prohibited export and permitted import from Rhodesia and the loss then was much greater than the loss which the farmers have suffered now. Why did the virtuous hon. member for Worcester not raise his voice then and say that the farmers should be compensated.

I am not a hypocrite.

I want to assure the Opposition that they will not catch a single vote by their attitude.

The hon. member who has just sat down attacked us.

It was not an attack.

He asks why we did not introduce a motion like that of the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar). During the last session we tried to say something for the farmers in connection with the loss suffered by them. Did we then receive any sympathy from hon. members opposite? It at once appeared that such a motion as this one would be immediately outvoted by members on the Government benches who represent farmers, if it came from this side of the House. The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) spoke about the people from overseas being our first concern.

I did not say that hon. members opposite looked after the interests of overseas people because I can no longer say so. I only said that hon. members opposite always state that they interpret the feelings of people overseas. These are the people who struck and therefore it would have been more fitting if they had influenced the strikers not to strike. Those are two separate matters.

The hon. member wanted to insinuate that we had the opportunity of protecting overseas people and that we did not do So.

No, that is not the case either.

I used to think that hon. members of the Nationalist party always said “South Africa first.” At the time of the strike, however, it appeared that the interests of South Africa were neglected on account of the interests of the international elements in the world. The latter were put first. Hon. members of the Labour party shouted and assisted the strikers, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice turned clean round and said just the opposite to the attitude taken up by them at the commencement of the strike. The Labour party decided the policy of the Government. I think that the hon. member for Marico is quite right, but when we ventured last session to speak about the loss by farmers the hon. members for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg), Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) and Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) absolutely denied that the farmers had suffered loss. The attitude then taken up by us is now justified by hon. members opposite. Not only are the farmers suffering damage through the Labour party with regard to administration, but in this case also the farmers suffered loss. The motion of the hon. member clearly means that loss was suffered. Not only did the citrus farmers suffer loss but also the wool farmers.

The traders also.

The wool market was in such an uncertain state owing to the strike that farmers in my constituency got a few pennies per lb. less than they would have received if they had sold later on. The position caused by the strike made them take the lower price rather than wait until, the strike was over.

The wool market sagged again. Why did that happen?

The hon. member also represents wool farmers and why does he not admit that they suffered damage? If the Government had acted firmly the difficulty would not have arisen.

What ought the Government to have done.

The Government could, e.g., have acted as the Australian Government did. The Prime Minister of Australia did not only talk about the interests of his country in platitudes on the platform, but he acted in a statesmanlike way.

Did not the shipping strike keep on longer in Australia?

An Act was passed in Australia to deport the strikers.

The strike lasted longer there than in South Africa.

When New South Wales refused to carry out the Act of the Federal Government the Prime Minister said that it was a challenge to the true interests of Australia and he appealed to the country. The farmers gave him a majority as large as any Prime Minister had ever had. It was the duty of our Government to take action at the time, and to carry out the slogan of “South Africa first.” Now we see that the policy of socialism is No. 1 and South Africa last. If the Government had exhibited courage at the time then the farmers would not have felt so strongly about the damage that they suffered. The interests of the farmers and of the country were neglected at that time. The hon. member for Frankfort made a remark about business people. It is still in doubt how much damage they suffered. It is a thing which cannot be calculated.

Include them in the motion.

The traders and the farmers suffered much damage and the economic life of the country was injuriously affected. It is late now to hear that the farmers suffered loss. When it was time to admit it then hon. members opposite did not do so. When we tried to protect the interests of the farmers we were shouted down. Where were the so-called farmers’ representatives last year? The hon. member for Frankfort belongs to one of the old South Africa families, but to-day he is hanging to the coat-tails of hon. members on the cross benches. It is with their assistance that he hopes his party will remain another six years in office, but one thing is certain, viz., that the shipping strike is one of the things which opened the eyes of the people.

The hon. member must not go too much into the strike.

Hon. members of the Labour party then said that the farmers’ interests counted for nothing and gave the preference to the interests of international socialism.

Moscow!

Is that not the Moscow spirit? They want to deny it, but whence do hon. members on the cross benches get their inspiration?

Moscow, Moscow.

It is no good being frivolous about it.

What about the calves?

The eyes of people on the countryside are being opened to-day. Although the hon. member for Marico has introduced the motion he gets no sympathy from farmers’ representatives opposite. No, some of them have already got up and said that they will vote against the motion. I shall vote for it even it does no good, even if only as a protest against the action of the Government during the strike.

One is really surprised at the things which are said here by people who are entrusted with the advancement of the country’s interests. We can employ our time more usefully than by talking of the strike. I think I have just as much interest in farming as anyone else. I have always lived from farming and will do anything I can for the farmers’ interests. We, however, often have difficult circumstances, and in this case we must be careful of the precedent we shall be laying down. It has rightly been said that there was a case where mealies were sent here about which trouble arose. I had myself to do with a case last year. People from Harrismith sent oats here. They did it with the best intentions, and when the oats came into contact with the sea air here it was found that they were not suitable for export, and they had to be sold here. They then wrote to me to see what I could do. If we are going to create such a precedent we should constantly be having similar cases. The hon. members opposite are now making such a fuss about the interests of the farmers; they do not love the farmers so much but they are fond of the possibility of making party capital, and therefore the matter of the strike is brought up from the past which we are so pleased is passed and a great noise is made. Let us rather try to do the work there is to do than to talk all this nonsense. We should be creating a wrong precedent by this motion, and I cannot vote for it as it stands.

I have intervened in this debate because I believe that for two reasons the Government would be wrong in accepting this resolution. I want to say at the outset that I am as much in sympathy with the farmers as any hon. member on the Opposition side—perhaps more—but I am not actuated in discussing this matter by the point of view that appears to actuate the South African party, namely, to make party capital, as has been definitely shown by the arguments they have brought forward. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) quite obviously got up to speak in order to introduce the staple argument about the influence of Moscow. I do not know whether that was a reflection on the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) and that it is suggested that he is influencing the Labour party, because as far as I recollect, and as far as I am aware, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg is the only member of this House who has ever been to Moscow. My regret in connection with many of the actions of the present Government is, not that we are influencing the Government too much, but that we are influencing the Government too little, of which we had evidence the other day in the attitude of the Minister of Finance towards us. As far as the Government in connection with this matter is concerned, assuming that the Government was responsible for the strike, is it suggested that it should then be liable in compensation? If that be the suggestion, then one is entitled to ask the S.A.P. members on this side, was that the policy which they pursued when they were responsible for strikes? We had quite a number of strikes in South Africa before the present Government came into office, and I do not recollect that when people suffered as a result of a strike they were compensated for their losses. The only occasion when they were compensated, I believe, was in 1913, when they did not compensate the people who suffered, but a number of scabs who were got out to work for the mines. They cannot point to a single instance where during the various strikes which came into being during the existence of the S.A.P. Government compensation was given to the people who suffered losses as a result of those strikes. We have not merely had a shipping strike; we have had railway strikes during the regime of the South African party Government, when the farming community and the commercial community must have suffered tremendous loss, and on no occasion did the South African party attempt or suggest that compensation should be given. That being the case I was very surprised at the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I know as a general rule he is sufficiently independent not even to follow his party, and I am surprised that the hon. member, who is a stringent economist, should have taken up the attitude he did on this occasion unless he thought it as well for party purposes to support his party.

You are wrong there.

Even if the Government had been responsible for the strike, they would not be liable to pay compensation, following the precedent of the South African party. But we are discussing something for which the Government was not responsible. It was not a strike engineered in South Africa; it originated and resulted from conditions overseas as the result of a contract with which the men were dissatisfied. There were only three courses for the Government under these circumstances. They could either have adopted the methods of the South African party—and some were advocated this afternoon—and said to the farmers—

They could have said—

Supposing the Government had adopted this attitude, it is obvious that the only result would have been bloodshed in South Africa and probably intervention from overseas, because we should have been imposing our forces against men who were not citizens of South Africa. They could have adopted an attitude of helping the strikers, a course which we would have favoured, but the Government did not adopt. The Government adopted the third course, an attitude of neutrality, helpful not towards the seamen, but towards the shipping companies. A breach of a contract entered into overseas was treated criminally in South Africa, The Government therefore took up an attitude not of absolute neutrality, but of friendly neutrality towards the shipowners. They are therefore not responsible either one way or the other for the strike. The people who are responsible for bringing the strike to a settlement much earlier than might otherwise have been the case are members of the South African Labour party, and I personally had some share in settling that strike. That being the case, I submit that the Government was not responsible for the strike, and that to pay compensation would be creating a precedent which I think would be most serious in regard to the finance of this country. Strikes, whether you like them or not, are bound to continue as long as you have conditions under which one handful of people are able to impose conditions of labour on another section. The ultimate resort of men who are dissatisfied is to strike. If you accept as a precedent that whenever a strike takes place the Government shall be responsible for loss occasioned by that strike, then you will have a financial state of affairs which I am sure the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would be the first one to shudder at. Not only is the Government right in not accepting responsibility, but the South African party, if it really carried out its ideas of finance, would be the first to support the Minister in his attitude. The only excuse I can find for the attitude of the South African party is not because they love the farmers, not because they are in favour of a policy of compensation, but because they want to oppose the Government, and they think this is an opportunity to create a certain amount of unpleasantness between the two sections of the Pact by trying to make out that the results which arose from the strike were due to the terrible influence of the South African Labour party. That is grossly incorrect, because the influence of the Labour party is infinitesimal on the present Government of South Africa.

Hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), are now speaking as representatives of the countryside, and the hon. member says that the eyes of people on the countryside are now being opened. Yes, they are, and what the people notice is that the members of the Opposition are catching at every straw to make party capital, and even use farming interests for the purpose. I ask what will become of the interests of the farmers if hon. members opposite make a party matter of such an innocent motion as this?

Innocent?

I think the proposal is quite fair and innocent, and I should like to support it, but now hon. members opposite say that we must pass the motion not because we are sorry for the farmers, but to give them an opportunity of reproaching the Government with being responsible for the strike. Are hon. members there really serving the interests of the countryside by this action? I feel sorry when I think of the improbability of the countryside being again handed over to the mercy of the Opposition. I should like to ask hon. members opposite—I do not speak of the big business men, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—but of hon. members who are farmers, and who certainly feel that to further the farmers’ interests it is wrong to make a party matter of it, why they are every time carried away by party feeling?

We feel sorry for you over there.

The hon. member is sorry that we are collaborating with the Labour party. That is quite another matter. We have here to do with a motion on behalf of the farmers, people who work hard—we know what the position of the fruit-growers is. They sent their fruit to Cape Town, and lost all their labour, but hon. members opposite have practically killed this motion by making a party matter of it. They know quite well that they are killing it and sacrificing it for the sake of telling the world that we were at fault in connection with the strike. We debated the strike last year, and therefore I shall not go into it again to-day, but the Opposition is only out for party benefit. The countryside, however, is not so green as hon. members there seem to think. The countryside knows the position, and reads “Die Burger” very regularly, and “Die Burger” gives the facts. The countryside does not hold the Government responsible for the strike. We had nothing to do with it. This is a motion which I should like to support, and although possibly I agree with the Minister of Railways and Harbours that it should not be directed to the Department of Railways, I should like to support the principle that the people should be compensated, but after all the contradictions on the other side of the House, and because they say there that if the motion is passed it will imply that the Government admits liability for the strike, I shall vote against it. I think the countryside will understand the matter quite-well.

You are making a party matter of it.

I am compelled to by what hon. members opposite say. I am quite sympathetic with the farmers. Hon. members opposite, however, are not.

A wonderful argument.

I can follow the argument quite well, and I do not mind what the hon. member says. The countryside will be able to form a good judgment, and I am certain that the hon. member knows little of the countryside, and that it will pay more attention to me than to the hon. member. The countryside knows that its interests are safe with this Government, because there are so many farmers sitting here, and this Government therefore has to look after the interests of the countryside.

I am astonished at the attitude of hon. members opposite in this matter. They always reproach us for not representing the farmers, but I should like to ask them how many practical farmers are sitting on this side of the House?

They are much thinned out.

When we want to speak about farmers’ matters, then we are accused that we want to make political capital out of it, and I cannot allow that to pass unnoticed. If we remain silent about farming interests, then the farmers will have little chance of being represented in the House. There is no logic in the speeches of hon. members opposite about this motion. Was not the motion intended to help the farmers?

What is the intention of the Opposition in supporting the motion?

We want to assist the farmers.

Your leaders did not say so.

I say so. It is not only the fruit farmers who have suffered loss, but also the mealie farmers. Contracts were entered into overseas which could not be carried out, owing to the strike. I do not claim that they should be paid out, but I support the motion that the fruit farmers should be assisted. It is quite illogical to say that we are not speaking in the interests of the farmers. As a farmer you cannot help your blood boiling when you hear the remarks of hon. members opposite. They were afraid to take action against the strike, and now the farmers have to suffer through it. I think these people should be given a chance. It is unfair for hon. members opposite to make the speeches they do. There are practical farmers sitting here who take more interest in farming than hon. members opposite.

Repetition of an untruth does not convert it into a truth.

Apropos the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) anent the methods of the South African party in supporting his motion, in order to make a party matter of it, it is perfectly legitimate, and is only to be expected. It is more than delightful to find the staunchest and sternest opponents of socialism advocating a socialistic method of getting over this difficulty. To find the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), that sturdy advocate of individualism, urging the Government to an obviously socialistic expedient is Gilbertian. He wants the Minister to mulct the Railway Administration and the taxpayers generally to compensate shippers on the railways for losses for which the railways are in no sense responsible.

It is a matter of charging lower rates, not compensating.

It is indirect compensation for loss on an ordinary trade risk—a surrender of revenue, legally due, from one party to a contract. I think there is only one thing to be considered, and that is what the Government contracted to do when it took this freightage. It contracted to take certain goods to the port of shipment for export purposes. I fail to see why the Government should be specially selected to bear the whole brunt of this risk without sharing profit where such accrues. It is a case of “heads I win tails you lose,” and the Government must always lose. If the Government had in any way failed to undertake and carry out what they contracted to do for the shippers, Parliament would be bound to meet them, but because the goods were consumed in the country, through no fault of the Government, the shipper, who, naturally, took the ordinary trade risk, was unfortunate that he lost by it. Hon. members on the cross-benches have as much sympathy with the farmer as anyone else, but the farmer or other producer cannot live on sympathy. I would suggest that the shipping companies, which profited by the circumstances of that strike by a very substantial lowering of costs, through’ a cutting of wages, might extend to the shippers a substantial refund by way of a rebate on rates for, say, this year and next.

They lost money, as the ships were not running.

Yes, and that loss is a good investment. When the fruit was disposed of in the local market one might have expected that, under the circumstances, the cold storage company, which monopolizes the profit in storage of perishables, would have placed their stores at the disposal of the fruit growers gratis, and shared the loss with the Government and the shipping lines. That would have been a very good business proposition. Had the South African party advocates of socialistic principles (tempered with competitive trade proclivities) influenced the cold storage companies to do this, and also made representations to the shipping companies to meet the fruit exporters, we would have believed in their sincerity. I would like to revert to the position touched upon by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). While the traders and farmers have a preponderating voice in the conduct of the country’s affairs, there is another section which, whilst it has not such political weight, yet is indispensable—the organized workers. Had the Union Government adopted coercive measures during the seamen’s strike, there is not the slightest doubt but that the organized workers would have taken measures to support the strikers. The sympathy of the wage-earning element was with these men, and the sympathy of everybody should have been with them, because only a few years previously we could not speak highly enough of them for the risk they ran in carrying out their important duties during the great war. Our friends opposite could not laud too highly the heroes of the Merchant Service. The workers of South Africa would not have stood aside and seen British seamen coerced. The instinct of the mass of the people is generally right.

The mass in the seamen’s union were against it.

Yes, we know. We have had bitter experience in South Africa of Crawfordism in the industrial movement!

I do not think the hon. member should go so deeply into the merits of the shipping strike.

Had the hon. members opposite endeavoured to secure the co-operation of all sides vitally concerned in the conveyance of fruit, and which share in the profits of that trade, rather than to use this motion to castigate the Government with, then we would have been more impressed with the sincerity of the Opposition.

I understand that my name has been mentioned once or twice this afternoon, and that an attack has been made on me for the part I took in the seamen’s strike. I have nothing to regret for anything I did in that direction. I believe the men were right, because the strike was their only way of making a protest against the proposal to reduce wages below the subsistence level. The strike broke out here without any warning, and for any hon. member to suggest that men like myself had anything to do with fomenting the strike is absolutely wrong. It was not a South African strike, but a world-wide one, and as an old trade unionist I made it my business to do what I could for the men. I want to give the lie direct to statements that I addressed meetings of the strikers or led them in procession. All I did was to help and advise the men to the best of my ability. I discovered seven or eight hundred British seamen, who by the way, were good enough to win the war for us whilst well-fed people stayed at home, walking the streets one night, and I went to the Castle and secured the use of the drill hall so that at least they could have shelter for the night. That was not taking part in the strike, but doing something for my fellow-workers, and something that I always would do under similar circumstances. I also assisted in arrangements being made for the men to be accommodated at the Wynberg Camp, as it was essential, in my opinion, that they should not be allowed to wander around the streets of this city. They had their own Strike Committee, and certainly preferred to run their own business in their own way. Their conduct from first to last was exemplary, and there was no disorder.

I think the hon. member is rather far off the subject of the debate. He is entitled to make an explanation, but must not discuss the strike in detail.

I do not propose to do so. I simply want to deny that I took an active part in the strike, but I think the men were absolutely right in protesting as they did. I cannot understand how members of the Labour party can be charged with instigating the strike. The hon. member for Troyeville has also been mentioned in this connection. There are members who would never strike a match for any cause whatever, but these men were British seamen and had pluck enough to strike. I received a telegram from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge)—

I do not think that has anything to do with the debate.

It is difficult to reply to an attack made on me and on my party without referring to certain actions that were taken at that time, and I want to prove that these statements are absolutely untrue, and I think I am justified—

The hon. member may reply to any accusation made in respect of himself.

I received a telegram on October 10th, 1925, which I want to read, from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to prove he was trying his best to settle the dispute.

What became of the strike funds?

From Kentridge, Durban, to Snow, Cape Town.—Have arranged settlement seamen’s strike here. See Freestone for particulars. Ballot resulted: For resuming work, 311; against. 230. Meeting decided abide majority vote. Strike will now be declared off Durban and strongly recommend similar action Cape Town. Use your efforts this direction.

What became of the strike funds?

That telegram goes to prove that those of us who were interested in the strike were doing our best to bring it to a conclusion. I have a letter to the effect that a certain Commander Struben was trying to get members of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. South Africa, to scab on the seamen, and that he was reprimanded by the Admiralty for so doing. I believe that the hon. member for Albany knows this gentleman.

What became of the strike funds?

The hon. member must not be led astray by the hon. member for Illovo.

As far as I am concerned, we did all we could to assist these men, and every step was taken to keep them quiet, and if they had not been housed properly there would have been serious disorders. They were trained soldiers and sailors and knew their job, and at one time these seamen were seriously considering making a mass attack at the docks on account of something that had taken place there. With regard to the motion of my hon. friend, in my opinion, he has not made out a good case why sums of money should be taken from the railway revenue to compensate for certain losses, a large portion of which were not due to the strike at all. I went down to the docks at the time the “Roman Star” was being loaded, and I found a mass of fruit was condemned by Mr. Bulmer, not because of the strike, but because it was of rotten quality, and it was not in the interests of South Africa to export such fruit from this country. I make that statement knowing what I say is correct Hundreds of packages had to be packed and repacked four or five times before they could be exported. Therefore, I say that it would be most unfair for the Railway Administration to compensate the citrus farmers through causes that the Administration had no control over, and was not in any way responsible for.

I move—

seconded the motion.

Before putting that motion I would appeal to my hon. friend. The motion moved by my friend opposite is of such a serious character that if it is not decided to-night, there will be no opportunity of getting it before Parliament again. Under the circumstances, I appeal to my hon. friend to realize my hon. friend is earnestly desirous of seeing some assistance is given to these people and, irrespective of party, there are a large number of members anxious to see that assistance given. I appeal to my friend not to be an obstructionist, and to withdraw his motion for the adjournment.

The hon. member appeals to me to withdraw my motion for adjournment. If it were not for the attitude of the Opposition the motion would long since have been voted upon.