Seeing the Minister of Agriculture is also here I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Mines and Industries to a certain matter. I would like him to try and get the assistance of the trade commissioner in regard to the embargo on South African fruit entering the United States. That embargo has been there for some years, and it is not an easy matter to remove it. They placed it on as they were afraid of the fruit-fly. I would like the Minister to try and get the embargo removed on certain fruits which are not subject to the fruit-fly. We have certain fruits which are not so subject. In particular, there are our grapes, pines, plums, apples and melons. We had a fair export of melons to the United States. You never get fruit-fly in melons. Then there are grapes; you do not get the fruit-fly in grapes or in pears or plums and apples. We are importing to a considerable value yearly from the United States, and we certainly have the right to try and re-open this question and try and get the embargo raised in respect of those fruits which are not subject to fruit-fly.

When the House adjourned last night I was asking the Minister if he could give us any information with regard to these trade commissioners. I was asking particularly why he still maintained that Milan is still the best place for our European trade commissioner. I would like to point out to the House that if the trade commissioner was stationed either in Hamburg or Rotterdam he would be in the centre of our biggest European trade. Our exports to the continent of Europe are mostly to France, Belgium, Holland and Germany—in regard to which Rotterdam or Hamburg is the easiest town to work those countries—and our exports to those countries amounted to something between £8,500,000 and £9,000,000 sterling in 1926, whereas our exports to Italy do not amount to £1,000,000. They amounted to £872,000. It seems to me very much more important that our representative on the Continent should be looking after our trade of £8,500,000 to £9,000,000, rather than looking after the £872,000 in Italy. As a matter of fact our trade to the principal countries adjacent to Rotterdam is ten times as much as the little trade he is looking after in Italy. I think the House ought to have some very good reason given by the Minister to establish the necessity of keeping our man down in one corner of Europe, when nine-tenths of our trade is on the northern side. I should also like to discuss and to get some information regarding our trade commissioner in the United States. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has brought up the matter of fruit export. I am afraid I am not as optimistic as the hon. member as regards our fruit export to the United’ States. I am fairly confident that if they do not find fruit-fly in our melons they will find something else. They are not going to have our melons in the United States. That’s that. You are wasting your money trying to climb over the tariff wall. You have little prospect of doing any big business with America. Before we had a trade commissioner in America—take 1922-’23—we exported roughly £2,000,000, actually £1,897,000. After the trade commissioner had been established there for roughly two years we are doing just about the same turnover of under two millions. What concrete results have we got from having our man stationed at New York? I notice on the Estimates that two years ago the expenses of the New York office amounted to £4,000, and now they amount to £6,630, that is they have gone up over 50 per cent., and we have not got any better results. Our trade with the United Kingdom last year amounted to 46 millions. This is the “decadent country” which my hon. friend the member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) mentioned the other day; as against the other great country, the United States, which took under two millions.

How much does the United Kingdom pass on?

If the hon. Minister had been a business man he would know it does not matter what your customer does with your goods so long as he takes them. If the United States likes to take more of our goods and pass them on, let them do so; but the trouble is they do not take more. Our trade commissioner in England costs £5,974.

What about the cost of living?

I am not talking about the cost of living, but the cost of getting your business.

You do not expect to get all the business you want in two years, do you?

I expect to get some results and to see our business with the United States increasing.

So it is.

As far as the figures are concerned we are not doing more than in 1922-’23; therefore it is due to the committee that the Minister should give us some statement showing that there is some advantage in haying a trade commissioner in New York. It is a question in my mind whether he would not be doing more good to our export trade if you transferred him to Montreal. You have a better chance of doing business with Canada than with the United States. Take our wine farmers; in regard to their product you have no chance of doing legitimate trade with the United States, but there is a big business to be done with wines in Canada. Unless he joins the rum fleet off Barbadoes he is not likely to do any business with one of our principal industries in the United States. In Montreal there is a business to be done in fruit, wines and base metals; and Canada has much more sympathy with the Union than the United States has. And if there is any business to be done with the United States it is a bagatelle to do the train journey from Montreal to the United States.

When I stopped yesterday I was saying that the Minister could not of his own knowledge have known whether there were diamonds in Namaqualand or not, and whether he should prohibit prospecting or not. It had to be brought to his notice by someone outside of Namaqualand or by people there who had prospected and found diamonds, or by the magistrate of Namaqualand. I assume that the most likely person to bring it to his notice was the magistrate of Namaqualand. Then I must also take it that the magistrate from time to time when diamonds where registered brought it to the notice of the Minister and I think that long before that time finds of diamonds in payable quantities had been reported. Why then was the proclamation not issued sooner or was it not delayed longer. It seems strange to me that the discovery of diamonds was given so great publicity. When I find diamonds I do not publish it to the whole world because it would be injurious to me to point out that the rich fields were there. But here comes a syndicate and, with the largest capital letters at the disposal of the “Cape Times,” it is published how rich the fields are was that possibly done to frighten the Minister into issuing the proclamation’? Was he Compelled to do so? Dr. Wagner says in the “Cape Argus” of the 4th May that the extraordinary position arose that prospecting was done for the first time in an area which could produce diamonds more profitably than the mines. Dr. Wagner was originally in the Government service, but his value must have been so great to the mining magnates that they offered him such a large salary that he was drawn away. I can understand anyone being seduced in that way so that the mines have him at their disposal. But what great damage can be done by such a person to Namaqualand? If the Minister has received information about the danger of over production then I ask him why he has not also curtailed the industry at Lichtenburg. Dr. Wagner says in connection with Lichtenburg that the fields are one of the most dangerous threats to the diamond market, just as formerly the fields in the South-West were. He says that the largest part of the stones are of inferior value. The danger is therefore at Lichtenburg and the South-West and not at Namaqualand. If the Minister did not have that reason for his proclamation then he must have had another. Let me here say that Dr. Wagner says that the stones in Namaqualand are of such a quality that even if no market can be found for the rest the Namaqualand diamonds will soon be bought by people who buy diamonds. But then there must be another reason, and I think the Minister will tell me that the other reason is that so many prospecting pegs have been put in that he had become afraid that everyone who has a prospecting area would be wanting to have discoverer’s rights for the prospecting area. It seems to me that the people who made the Act of 1899, almost had a presentiment of what would occur in Namaqualand. In those days it was practically regarded as a desert, but those people must have felt that in such a large area of 7.000 morgen people would be found who would want discoverer’s rights and have enough ambition to go and search for precious stones there. The prospecting areas are all in circles there with a diameter of 500 yards, and there are 1,645 prospecting areas in those parts. If the discoverers get their discoverers’ claims—let them be twenty as under the old Act—then the labourer will be worth his hire, because he will get twenty claims for his spirit of adventure. If the Minister says that he wants 10 per cent. of it, Namaqualanders are willing to give it up. Then there will still be 1,625 left for the public on each area. The Government will get its benefit from each of the areas because it gets licence moneys for 1,625 claims which otherwise —if there was no prospecting done—would not be taken out. If, however, this is all prohibited, when will the poor people of Namaqualand be prepared to make further discoveries? They will not do so if they get no benefit from it. Is it right towards Namaqualand, the Cape Province and the State?

You are advocating a wrong thing.

The hon. member is also a Cape man. He is in business and if diamonds are found there he will also have an opportunity of doing business there. But he is not assisting me in influencing the Minister. It is because of people like the hon. member that there has been no opportunity in the past for South African boys. For that reason the Namaqualanders never got a chance. Because there are members like the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), because there are so many of such members, the countryside suffers so much. The hon. member takes up the attitude that if things are good here they come to South Africa, but if they are not they leave to-morrow for Australia. Somebody must prospect in Namaqualand otherwise discoveries will never be made. If the Minister says that he wants no further discovery of diamonds I can understand it, but then no further discoveries must be made in the Transvaal either. Why are we selected for disappointment? Why should Namaqualand be dealt with in such a step-motherly way? Why is the proclamation applied to Namaqualand and not to Hopetown, etc. The farmers in Namaqualand are in the position of a hungry cow running on bare veld and shut off by a wire from a lucerne field, and the cow is so lean that it is so weak as not to be able to get through. The Minister has put the fence there between the people and their future. Does he not think that the harm he is doing to the children whose future depends on it will one day react on himself. We have been treated in a step-motherly way long enough. Our people are getting refractory. They could expect nothing from the former Government. They were kept down all those years, but now this. Government has come into office. [Time limit.]

I Move—

This makes it uniform with the same word under the sub-head trade commissioner in Kenya.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the question of the fishing industry. The Minister will remember, two sessions ago Parliament passed a resolution asking the Government to encourage the development of the fishing industry and the resolution contained certain suggestions in order to improve the conditions of the industry. The resolution included the establishment of certain harbours and shelters for boats on the coast of the Union. That motion was carried unanimously by Parliament and the Minister since then appointed a commission to travel on the coast line and inspect the different shipping harbours. That report has been laid before Parliament. It is a very important report and I questioned the Minister a few days ago on the subject but the Minister was not then prepared to make a statement, I only wish to refer to certain harbours on the Caledon coast. The commission very pointedly recognized that at Hermanus, Hawston and Gans Bay certain harbour facilities should be established and the commission recognized that the Government should inquire into how a survey has to be made, and I sincerely trust the Minister, who is personally acquainted with the coast and is also acquainted with a very important industry the fishing industry, will deal with this matter. I do not want to enter into the question of the importance of the industry but there is no doubt in the past all Governments have to a great extent neglected the fishing industry We have no conception what a great deal of good we can do to our country by developing the fertile fishing grounds surrounding the coast During the last few years we have learnt a great deal from the fishing survey and I wish here to express and I daresay it will be shared by the whole House, my sense of regret at the death of Dr. Gilchrist who did so much in giving technical advice regarding the great fish ing grounds in our waters. The development of this industry will find employment for a greater number of our population. On certain parts of the coast you find our European population sticking to this industry although they are hampered with great disadvantages, yet for years they have been clinging to this industry which is at times very precarious. We owe a debt of gratitude to these people for the way they have stuck to the industry. The State should show a little more practical assistance. With regard to my own coast line you find you have the fertile Agulhas bank, perhaps the most fertile fishing ground in the world, acknowledged to be so by scientists. You have the fishing boats at Gans Bay and Hermanus but they have no shelter and the industry therefore cannot develop. It is impossible for the people to row to the fertile banks in one day and come back again. Not only will the development of this industry lead to an increase of employment but there are many subsidiary industries which follow the great fishing industry. Our farmers are clamouring for phosphates. In other countries the offal of this industry is used largely for fertilizing purposes, but here we have nothing of that description with the exception of the whaling industry which does a a certain amount of work in that direction. I cannot enter into this question largely, in committee, but it is an important phase of the industry, and I assure him the development of the soil and the farming community are closely connected with the fishing industry. The farmers require fish, especially on the coastal belt, because fish is largely used as food for the labourers on the farms. The Minister has taken the correct course by appointing a commission as the result of the motion passed by the House two years ago. The Minister will establish for himself a name, even when his reputation as Minister of Mines has departed altogether, his reputation will live in the annals of the country if he puts this industry on a sound economic basis. I hear it rumoured that Mr. Warington Smyth is going to retire as Secretary of the department. In connection with the fishing industry I wish to pay a special tribute to Mr. Warington Smyth, who has taken a live interest in the industry and I hope his successor will follow the threads and the policy laid down by Mr. Smyth in advising the Minister to put the industry on a proper basis.

It seems a long cry from fishing to mining, but they both come under the control of the same Minister and must be discussed together. Throughout the country there will be regret that the Government has not introduced a comprehensive scheme for developing our gold mining areas. The prosperity of the country has been built up and depends upon the position of the mining industry and everyone will agree that it is suicidal not to make every possible effort to maintain the industry at its present level. Since last session Dr. Pirow has taken the place of Sir Robert Kotze as Government Mining Engineer, and I would ask the Minister whether there is going to be a consequent change of the Government’s policy in regard to State mining. About the last official thing that the late Government Mining Engineer, Sir Robert Kotze, did was to issue a report on the Far East Rand, and this turned out to be a very gloomy document, and if half what he prognosticates proves true we ar in for a very bad time indeed. Though that report is signed under date September 30, 1925, and the imprint shows that it was printed during 1925, members of this House did not get hold of it until June 7, 1926. It was very unfair to hon. members when last session we were discussing this matter that we had to depend upon a report several years old, while an up-to-date document should have been available. Sir Robert Kotze’s report does not make pleasant reading, but nevertheless, the facts cannot be gainsaid or disregarded by any government that is anxious, as I am sure this Government is, for the welfare of the country. In his report he states that of 49 mines which produced over 6,000 tons in 1924, at the time the report was written, two had already closed down, 19 had lives of less than five years, and 11 had lives of less than 10 years. In 15 years definitely half the industry will be closed down. Fifteen years is a very limited period in the lifetime of a nation, but on the basis of this report, within fifteen years our mining output, unless some new development takes place, is going to be decreased by no less than £20,000,000 per annum. The report also says quite truly that for some years no new mine has been opened and no virgin ground has been tapped. Sir Robert also reported that apart from Geduld No. 4, which has in the meantime been taken up, only one large and two small areas have a chance of being leased in the near future either to separate companies or adjoining mines. One would like to know what Sir Robert Kotze means by “the near future,” seeing that Geduld No. 4 which has just been taken up, had been advertised for nine years before it was taken up, and even then it was taken up practically on the tenderers’ own terms. Laymen must always be surprised when the State gold-mining areas are discussed by representatives of the big mining houses to find that there are such extraordinary risks in mining on these areas until the leases are signed, as soon as they are signed, untold wealth is predicted. The same representatives also criticize the Government because they say the Government’s terms for the leases are too onerous. I understand that Sir Robert Kotze has now joined one of these groups, and it is interesting to see what he had to say about the onerous nature of the agreement which the Government require. His report contains these remarks—

Then again the South African Mining Year Book gives the following testimony—

But, despite all this sympathetic attitude on the part of the Government, little has been done, and, in my view, and, I think, the view of many other people, an economic crisis is steadily coming upon us. I want to ask the Government what they are going to do in the matter. We all know that it takes years to develop mines and if a mine were started to-day before it will produce gold other mines will close down. It seems to me that it is becoming a question of a trial of patience as between the Government and the big houses. The big houses can afford to wait for the simple reason that delay suits them. If mines close down it means that there will be a lot of unemployment, and with unemployment prevalent wages will come down. A lot of unemployment means that working costs will come down and in the long run, if they like to wait, the companies will get the leases on their own terms. The Minister knows all this probably better than I do, and what I want to ask him is how long is the Government going to persist in its present policy, or is it going to do what it did in the case of the iron and steel industry, and take the matter into its own hands by going in for State mining?

I wish to support the claim by my hon. friend for Caledon (Mr. Krige). We all know, of course, that the fishery industry is a very important one and that some investigation is being made, but I want to put it to the Minister that that industry is not being pushed in this country as it should be. We have had very important surveys made. Surveys are useful to enable people to know where to find the fish, but the Minister, apparently, as other Ministers before him, has forgotten that once you have your grounds for fishing, you have to see that the industry is properly regulated and that the fish also are protected. In this regard I particularly want to refer to the whaling industry. A very important commission consisting of representatives of Norway, Sweden and England I think, issued a very important report some years ago. This commission made strong recommendations in regard to methods to be employed if we wished to prevent the whales becoming extinct. I would like to know from the Minister whether he has considered that report, and what the Government is going to do in regard to it. Then may I refer to the powers of the provincial council in reference to fisheries. The provincial council have powers now merely in regard to the preservation of the industry. They have no powers beyond the, and I think that the Fisheries Advisory Board appointed by the provincial authorities is a body which is far more alive than even the Government to-day in so far as this question is concerned. The Government have their survey ships, they find new grounds, and then they are perfectly satisfied, whereas the Advisory Board goes into matters very carefully, they see to the preservation of the industry, they see that the fish are not caught away unduly, and generally they have ambitions far beyond the powers given to them. In regard to crayfish alone, as a member of that Advisory Board I know that for years we have had under discussion the matter of a modicum of protection for the crayfish. Whenever we meet we have to consider a new regulation. The regulation which has been made does not suit this one, that one or the other, and even political powers are brought to bear to influence the executive of the provincial council to alter the regulations. If we had greater powers we would be able after careful consideration to fix regulations which would bind these people for good and all. We do not wish to find that our crayfish are caught away entirely in these waters, as happened to the lobster in America. I would ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived when he should consider giving the provincial council further powers in regard to this matter. If they had powers in consultation with the expert of the Government they could lay down rules and regulations in regard to the preservation of the fish, and in regard to extending the fishing grounds, and they will act so as to make this a really great industry, in this country. Take the stocking of inland waters, the provincial council can do nothing. The Government could give them power to go through the country and stock the rivers. If we had the rivers thoroughly well-stocked, we would find that it would be an inducement, as it is in other countries, to visitors to come out here. In Australia they have stocked their rivers, as we should do, with salmon ova. New Zealand spent 60 years in research and effort and to-day they are reaping the benefit. We are satisfied to do as little as possible and do not give powers to those who are prepared to act. Another point I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice is in reference to the research board. I have in years past suggested to the Minister of the Interior, and he has always referred me to the Minister of Mines and Industries, that he should get our research board to make a close study of the medical plants in this country. We have very valuable medicinal plants. Through the work of those interested in Kirstenbosch, we have established gardens not only here, but also at Whitehills, near Matjesfontein, and we are putting in every South African plant we can find. Unless we make an earnest start now we are going to lose many of our most valuable plants in this country. Many of the plants containing valuable medicinal properties and formerly used in the Native Territories, for example, I am told, have now been exterminated. Patent medicines are taking their place simply because no record is kept. Unless we start putting research officers on to work now, we shall find that the remaining few plants which are left will also be exterminated. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this, and see this large asset is developed. Then another point, the assize officers in the Minister’s department do work for the protection of the public. The public are complaining very bitterly in regard to the scales on the railway premises, and on enquiry I found that instead of this department appointing the assize officer to examine these scales, the Railway department appoint their own officers to do the work. None of these men work under the Mines department, but the fact remains that they are railway officials and are left to arbitrate between the public and the Railway department. He is really an employee of the Railway Department. Surely this position was never intended by the Act. It requires that this department alone should be responsible for the examination of scales. If you are going to leave it to the Railways to appoint a man nominally under this department you will never get the public to be satisfied with the examinations. It is a very large public concern and the public should have protection against the railways as against any other concern.

I should like to know whether the Minister can tell us anything about the commission of enquiry that was appointed in the matter of fisheries. In my constituency the commission visited Duivenhoksmond and said that there was sufficient entrance for boats. Still Bay, Fishery, and Mossel Bay were also visited, and at all four places the commission thought the places excellent for fishing. Excellent work can be done and the conveniences much improved, and I think the Minister should make haste and give us a grant out of the £10,000.

I would like to ask the Minister to use his very best endeavours to prevent the senseless slaughter of whales. There is no doubt that these mammals are fast becoming extinct. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) pointed out, a commission has inquired into the matter. The Minister was told by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that he would achieve fame if he established the fisheries of this country on a sound basis. I would say that he would be placed among the immortals if he saved these whales from destruction. It is really a very sad spectacle. What has happened on land is now happening on sea. I hope the Minister will really consider this matter and see what he can possibly do in conjunction with other Powers to preserve these whales from destruction. I would like to have a few words with the Minister in regard to road construction. I put a question to him on the tenth of March last. On the 10th March, 1925, a motion was carried that the Government should confer with the provincial authorities with a view to the establishment of a system of national highways and roads for transportation. The Minister, in reply to my question, referred to the very useful and valuable report by the roads and bridges committee and which appeared in the Journal of Industries. He proceeded to say that the Financial Relations Act had not been in operation long enough to enable the provincial councils to deal with this large and difficult problem. One admits that the problem is large and difficult, but I venture to submit that something should be done. I also asked the Minister whether he had been in consultation with the different provincial authorities. He asked me to put it on paper. I did not put it on paper; I waited for this opportunity. I hope he will unreservedly tell us what steps have been taken. Has there been a consultation with the provincial authorities? No? It is very lamentable, it seems to me, to slight a solemn resolution by this House taken two years ago. The years fly by and nothing is done, and I would ask the Minister to take this matter up seriously. Let the department take it up and confer with the provincial authorities and let us have a settled programme of road construction. One admits there are difficulties in the way.

Yes, millions are in the way.

A great deal can be done not necessarily involving the expenditure of millions. One does not require everywhere that there should be concrete roads. If the Minister would read the literature issued by that public-spirited body, the Roads League of South Africa, he would get some very valuable information. I know a resolution was carried last year, but we are waiting in patience to know what the Government’s programme is. We do not expect the impossible, but we would like to see a scheme of some kind and an annual advance. A lapse of two years since the Financial Relations Act was passed is somewhat unreasonable.

I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) with a good deal of interest. I take it he knows his subject when he is discussing trade relations with America. I regret to find that he is so pessimistic about it, although I must say I am rather inclined to agree with him. I have been following the trend of events in America very closely. I think perhaps we made a mistake when we sent a politician. I have nothing against Mr. Louw, but I take it the type of man to send to America is a commercial traveller, someone who knows something about business. It comes down to this: the Americans have made up their minds that they are not going to allow our fruit to go into America. The people you should give favours to are the people who buy your stuff. The Americans are not giving us any favours. I am rather hazy about the figures, but I understand we imported from America something like £10,000,000 and we export just under £2,000,000. So the balance is with America. I want to put it to the Minister that he should do what the Argentine does. When America talks to the Argentine the Argentine talks back to America. Why should we allow all these American motor cars to come in here as they do? Why should we give favoured nation treatment to America? Why not say “You say you find fly on our fruit; you say all sorts of things to keep our goods out. We are going to make it pretty difficult for you to bring your cars in.” That is what the Argentine did. Our trade commissioner, when he has finished junketing round with the Irish Minister, when he keeps off politics and thinks more about trade, might go to the Americans and tell them that unless we are treated properly South Africa might retaliate. I think we should do a good thing if we went further north into Canada. I am told by Canadians that there is room there for our dried fruits and our base metals. I believe Mr. Louw did his best and he went to Canada. He showed them some good stuff and we did not deliver the goods. This is his complaint. I am told by one of his staff that they are rather afraid to go to Canada now and talk about South African goods. I am not going into the question of what sort of goods. The Minister will know. I do hope if we appoint trades commissioners in future that we are not going to agree to my slogan of “Jobs for Pals.” The trade commissioner should be a hard-headed business man. If any business men in this House wanted to send anyone to Canada or Australia to look for business he would not select anyone on these benches. He would not choose a politician. As a rule they are pretty bad business men. I want to ask the Minister of Railways to give more money for advertising in America. You get fine publicity there. Mr. Oettle is the live wire of the show. He is a South African, and a jolly good fellow, too, one of the best we have ever produced. He is out to help this country. He has done more for the poultry industry than any Government. I would ask the Minister to take that man and send him to Canada as the trade commissioner. I may say that Mr. Oettle has not asked me to do this, of course; I hardly know him. Let us recall the politicians, and leave them here, and send the type of man such as Mr. Oettle is as trade commissioner. This (reference to politicians) applies as much to the South African party as to anyone else. Your people set the example. The first man sent was Mr. Chiappini. I am talking quite seriously; I am not criticizing the Government. Then I would like to say we want more tourists—not the tourists who come 400 or 500 at a time—they are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and the only thing they seem to be interested in is a few natives; but we want single tourists who will bring money to the country.

We are surprised to hear the speech of the hon. member for Newlands attacking the Government for having dared to appoint a trade commissioner in the United States. The memory of the hon. member and’ other hon. members who talk like that is very short. During the last election it was one of the planks of the South African party platform and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) laid it down in his election manifesto as one of the things that he would do if he remained in power. We said at the time that it was all talk and to-day that comes out very plainly because the supporters of the hon. member are making an attack on this Government for having appointed such a person. It seems very unfair of them seeing that they advocated the same thing at the elections. The hon. member for Newlands also said that we should increase our trade with Great Britain because she was our biggest client, but the hon. member forgets to tell the House that although Great Britain takes 61 per cent. of our exports, 45 per cent. of that is gold. Only the remaining small amount is commercial goods. The balance 39 per cent., which other countries take, is not gold, but all produce and that makes a great difference to our country. The largest export of ordinary produce, apart from minerals, goes to other countries and not to Great Britain.

What countries?

To France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc. That is from the figures. If hon. members can convince me that the figures are wrong I will accept it but those are the figures that I have. The hon. member for Newlands further said that the trade with America had not increased since the appointment of the trade commissioner. I want to give the House the latest official figures. Our exports to the United States in 1924 (before the appointment of the trade commissioner) amounted to £1,215,191. In 1926 it was £1,963,212, an increase of about £750,000.

What about 1923?

That was a little higher than 1924. I am speaking of the figures immediately before the appointment of the trade commissioner. Take also the figures for Canada. In 1924 they were £9,651, and in 1926 £130,139. Our trade commissioner does not only operate in the United States, but passes just as much time in Canada. He is constantly travelling between the two countries, and the increase in our exports to Canada is the result of his work there. Hon. members argue that he can go and live in Canada, but even with his residence in New York he is doing good work in Canada, and, therefore, he can remain in New York in order to still further improve the trade in the United States. I also want to touch upon the status of our trade commissioner in the United States. I mentioned the matter last year and the Minister promised that it would be discussed at the Imperial Conference to see how the status of our trade commissioners could be improved and raised. Our trades commissioner in the United States is still in the position that he is not acknowledged by the United States Government, and he has to act through the British ambassador. My request last year was that he should be enabled to act directly, because it is not right that the United States should regard us as inferior. I should like to know from the Minister how far the matter progressed, and if there is a chance of his obtaining a higher status so that he can act directly. I understand that the United States Government is not prepared to acknowledge him as political representative if he lives in New York, because political representatives must live in Washington. If he, however, gets the title of Consul-General he can live in New York and be acknowledged. I do not know if that is correct, and I should be glad if the Minister will enlighten us.

I rise to sustain the plea put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in his effort to see our fisheries advanced and be perfected. It is very unfortunate that they are not getting more attention than they do. I would direct attention more particularly to the fresh water fish—to the trout—in the East Griqualand and Maclear districts, where farmers themselves have stocked the rivers. I have met people who have fished in Canada, New Zealand and all parts of the world, and, as far as I could gather, they are unanimous in saying that some of the streams of the Maclear district are the finest they have come across. But in Kokstad streams have been polluted by carp, and the result is, one of the finest fishing fields in the world has been spoilt and possibly ruined for ever. In the Maclear district carp has been introduced to two dams that I am aware of. Mr. Hay, who is employed by the Government to make a survey of the fresh water streams within the Union, was here some time ago. He was concerned that what had happened in Kokstad might overtake the Maclear streams. Unless these carp are destroyed very quickly there is a danger that fishing in the Maclear district will be ruined. It is a pity that one of the finest assets which any country can have should be spoilt in the way that is being done, and I hope the Minister will give this matter his close attention. I do not know whether such fisheries should not pertain to the Union Government, and not to the provincial government. Take, for instance, the Orange River, some of its tributaries drain the Orange Free State and others the Cape Province, you cannot have concerted action under such circumstances. Advisory boards would do a good deal towards maintaining interest in the matter.

When one listens to the arguments of hon. members opposite one is surprised at South Africa doing a penny’s worth of trade with any other country except great Britain and the other dominions, because it seems that the opposition wants systematically to fight any attempt to develop markets in other countries. I only wish to ask the Minister a question in connection with the extension of our trade with other countries. It is well known that two years ago we passed a law on customs duties which contained the principle of doing business with other countries on the quid pro quo basis. In consequence of great agitation by the Opposition against the trade with other countries, the Act was subsequently watered down a little, and Great Britain was allowed to again become the most favoured nation and a schedule was drawn up of articles in connection with which Great Britain would still receive a preference. Now I should like to ask the Minister how things stand with Part 1 of the second schedule in so far as the dominions are concerned. Is the Act in practice only applied to the United Kingdom or also to the dominions? I do not know if it is so, but I heard rumours that the trade with other countries is being hampered in practice by the schedule not only being applied to the United Kingdom but also to the dominions. I should be glad if the Minister will tell us what our relation is towards the other dominions. Then another matter of a local nature. As the Minister knows we appealed in vain a few days ago to the Minister of Justice for more police on the countryside. I want to see now whether the Minister of Mines cannot assist a little. In my constituency there are quite a number of diamond mines, and also a large cement factory where 600 or 700 natives are employed. The farmers find that sheep are constantly being stolen and they suspect the natives of it because there are so many of them. I want to ask the Minister whether in view of this he cannot apply a sort of compound system to the diamond fields and to the cement factory so that the natives may be put under better control. In any case it should be seen to that the farmers do not suffer as a result of the industry and the mining operations there.

I again wish to draw attention to our trade relations with Australia. It is anticipated that we are going to have a record mealie crop, but unfortunately Australia has increased the duty on South African maize from 2s. to 7s. per 100 lbs. When I brought the matter up first on the Treasury vote I suggested that the Minister of Defence might, during his visit to Australia, take the matter up with the Commonwealth Government. In view of the fact that for twenty years we have had a treaty with Australia I fail to see why we cannot enter once more into reciprocal trade relationships with Australia, which would be an advantage to our farmers and South Africa generally. At last I have an opportunity of agreeing with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) for I associate myself with his remarks in regard to the appointment of trade commissioners. Men of business experience should be appointed to these posts. Mr. Spilhaus had a profound knowledge of business and his appointment as trade commissioner on the continent was of great benefit to the country.

What did Natal say about his appointment?

I am not speaking for Natal, but as a representative of the Cape Province. The engagement of Mr. Spilhaus was one of the best appointments made by the then Government. That very shrewd and keen concern the Imperial Cold Storage Company seized the first opportunity of securing the services of Mr. Spilhaus when his appointment with the Union Government terminated. In future when appointments of this sort are made the Government should select a man of business experience irrespective of the cost. I notice that £500 are to be spent for exhibiting and advertising our produce in England and £1,000 for doing the same on the continent. Double or treble that amount should be spent in Great Britain, for that country buys the greatest portion of our produce. The success of a business depends largely on advertising, yet we have the paltry sum of £150 to be spent on making our goods known in Kenya Colony. I should also like to associate myself with the eloquent remarks made by the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and Caledon (Mr. Krige) with regard to the fisheries. It may be said that in so doing I am pleading for the fishing stations around the coast of my constituency, but the benefit of extending these fisheries would by no means be confined to the people who actively participate therein. The farmers would also participate as they would be able to obtain cheap fish for their employees.

An attack has been made this afternoon on our trade commissioner in America, and it is very difficult to see what the object was. It cannot be justified from a merely economic point of view. I want to strongly object to the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). He said, if not directly, then by innuendo, that the mission of Mr. Eric Louw to America was a failure, because he is a politician, and is mixing in political society there. I regard this as an unfounded attack, and it appears to me to be malicious. Mr. Louw was an ornament to this House politically, but that was not the reason for his appointment. If anyone in this House can claim to be a business man, then Mr. Louw has the same right to do so, although possibly on a smaller scale. In addition, he is a lawyer and a highly cultured man. In my opinion, no better man could have been sent to America than Mr. Louw. That is not only my opinion, but it is confirmed by experience, and by the increase in the trade between South Africa and America as a result of his efforts. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has given a few figures, but I want to say that his figures for 1926 fall far short of the actual amount. The exports from South Africa to the United States in 1924 were valued at £1,215,000; in 1925 £1,320,000, and in 1926 £2,670,000. I want to quote from the best possible sources and give the figures in dollars. The exports from South Africa to the United States amounted in 1925 to 6,620,020 dollars, and in 1926 13,357,515 dollars, an increase, therefore, of 6,695,495 dollars, or 105 per cent. If we want to form an opinion about the work done by our trade commissioner, then we cannot take any other criterion but his report. During the first complete year that he passed in America there was an increase from which we could form an idea about the work we have done there. If in one year, directly through his mediation, an increase of 105 per cent. took place in our export trade with the United States, how can anyone give better proof, and how can more be demanded? For the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) to say that the trade commissioner is a politician is not only unfounded, but malicious. There are other important figures which I can quote. During the same time the export trade from Australia to America considerably fell away. In 1925 it was 55,110,000 dollars, and in 1926 it was 45,738,000 dollars, a reduction of 9,371,000 dollars. On the other hand, I may add that the export trade of the United States to South Africa also increased, from 46,162,000 dollars in 1925, to 51,080,000 dollars in 1926. That is only an increase of about 5,000,000 dollars, while our export trade to America increased by nearly 7,000,000 dollars. In other words, the balance of trade has improved astonishingly in our favour, viz., by 1,777,232 dollars, or 4.5 per cent. As for Canada, the figures are much more satisfactory. The export trade from South Africa to Canada was worth 101,755 dollars in 1925, as against 1,001,236 dollars in 1926. That is an increase of 899,481 dollars, or of 883.8 per cent. over 1925. Can hon. members form any other conclusion than that our trade commissioner has done excellent work? On what grounds are such depreciatory insinuations made? There are also difficulties which appear from the report, and I want to bring them to the notice of the Minister. The first is the difficulty which has repeatedly been brought, by Mr. Louw, to the notice of the Board of Trade and Industries, of the Railway Administration and of his friends, viz., that he cannot get the South African producers to deliver the goods for which he asks; especially in the matter of the fruit trade, he has, by personal intervention, secured a considerable demand in Canada, and his disappointment, and that of the Canadian dealers, is that they cannot get the necessary supplies from South Africa. It is because the South African dealers do not want to trade direct with America. Everything must be done through London, and this very fact that everything goes through London makes an amazing deference in the figures. On account of our trade going through London, a tremendous amount of our South African produce goes to America without South Africa getting the credit, or our trade commissioner getting the credit as the intermediary for pushing the traffic. It is treated as imported from England. In connection with this important matter that there is no direct trade, I want to ask the Minister a question about a report which appeared a few months ago, viz., that it was possible that direct shipping communication might be arranged between the United States and South Africa. Is there any truth in the report, and has the department of the Minister any information about the possibility thereof? We must assume that the attack on our trade commissioner had a malicious political object, because Mr. Louw is above a personal attack. Therefore, I feel that we on this side should express our appreciation and acknowledgment of the work that Mr. Louw has done during the time he has had at his disposal.

I think it would be interesting, when the Minister replies to this question about trade with America, if he would give us some information as to what particular products are exported from this country to America. It is not our business to send a trade commissioner to encourage the export of American goods to this country, but it is our duty to encourage trade in America for our goods. I should not be surprised if a considerable portion of the £2,000,000 of exports from this country to America are minerals which find their way over there without any effort on the part of the trade commissioner. The companies who produce minerals are skilled in finding markets for their own products, and it does not require the intervention of the trade commissioner.

But they are not included.

I rather suspect a good proportion of the value is composed of minerals, and if so, there is no need for the trade commissioner to push the sale of these minerals, and if the value of the minerals was deducted, the balance of the exports to America would mean that the cost of maintaining the trade commissioner, £6,000 odd, would represent a considerable percentage of the exports from this country. I should like shortly to say a word on what has been said by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) on the question of fisheries. We both asked the Minister a question some time ago as to what action he proposed to take on the report of the committee in regard to the fisheries in this part of the world. There were definite recommendations with regard to Kalk Bay, Simonstown and other places, and the Minister said the report had not been presented very long, and that he had not had time to consider it. Some time has now elapsed, and I hope he will be able to give us some idea. About 18 months ago a valuable report was sent in by a committee consisting of the late Dr. Caldecott, Sir Robert Kotze, and I forget the name of the third member, making suggestions for the encouragement and development of mining generally, and last year I remember asking the Minister what action he was proposing to take on the report, and whether it was proposed to give effect to the recommendations, not so much with a view to assisting the actual mines of the Witwatersrand, but with a view to helping milling in the country districts, and on that occasion the Minister said the same thing, that he had not had time to consider the matter, and, as far as I know, nothing has been done. The only thing I find in the estimates dealing with this matter is sub-head J, dealing with—

I do not know what has been done in the past, but, according to the Auditor-General’s report last year, there was a sum under this head of £850 spent on roads, included in which was an amount paid to the provincial administration in the Free State, which, as the Auditor-General remarks, seems rather strange. There was also an advance to another company, but, apart from that, there seems to be no reference of anything being done in the development of district mining. It seems to me the general policy of the Government, as regards tariffs and wages, is against the development of mining, because the general policy tends to put up the cost of production. I do not want to go into that question now. [Time limit.]

Previously I pointed out that, despite admittedly sympathetic treatment of the Government, very little has been done in the matter of developing the Far East Rand, and what little was done was entirely in favour of the companies. The lease to the Sub-Nigel Company caused one of the biggest booms of recent years on the market. From one of the mine official reports before the lease was granted, I read—

The Minister’s pen must be a magic wand, for no sooner had that lease been signed, than this area which was so “highly speculative” became phenomenally rich, and the shares which at the time the lease was granted were standing at about £1,000,000 value, are to-day worth at market price £7,500,000. Out of this £6,500,000 profit, these people who pleaded for “reasonable terms,” and which profit was obtained through the cession from the State, got the lot, and the Government got nothing. The company were asked to guarantee £350,000 for working expenses, which was referred to as a large amount of money, and it is interesting to know how it was raised; 450,000 ten-shilling shares were issued at 12s., and were at that time about 40s. on the market. Instead of the conditions being onerous, and the company having to put up a large cash requirement of £350,000, they made an actual profit of £630,000 on that deal. The parent company had already had a very nice “rake-off” as holders of a large number of shares, but, in addition, it got £11,300 for underwriting the shares. This is one of the instances where the reasonable terms of the Government were extremely unreasonable to the general public. There was another case, that of the Geduld East Company, where the company obtained a lease on terms which the Year Book described as distinctly promising. Again they were distinctly promising for the company, but there was little for the State. The company has a capital of £350,000 in £1 shares, 50,000 fully paid up, and 300,000 at issue at 2s. a share, the balance to be called up as required. In this particular instance, there were no vendor shares, and therefore the issue was attractive to the general public. As soon as the shares were put on the market, they went to a premium of 7s. To-day the shares of this particular company are about £2. In other words, the share value of the property is £700,000, and the company has the manipulation of these shares, and they have only put up £80,000. There again the “reasonable terms” to the company are very poor terms for the State, and very good terms to the speculators and the market manipulators, most of whom are living in Europe. It is very easy to be wise after the event, and, therefore, nobody can accuse the Government or the Minister of being negligent in this matter. But I think this proves that if the State wishes to get the best possible benefit out of our mineral resources, we shall have to exploit our minerals ourselves. The ideals of the companies and the State in this matter are in conflict. As far as the companies are concerned, their interest is largely in the share market, while the State is concerned in providing employment, and also providing revenue to run this country. There is another instance of market manipulation which I would like to mention. I refer to the E.R.P.M. and Cinderella amalgamation. At one time when these companies were considering amalgamation, the Government was blamed in the House and by the Press for not guaranteeing certain debentures, but I think hon. members will agree with me when I state the facts that the Government were quite right in refusing to do so. At the time when this agreement was brought about for amalgamation, the E.R.P.M. shares stood at an approximate value of £1,000,000. To-day, although there has been nothing done on the new property, the shares stand at over £3,000,000. While the going is good, as the saying is, the controlling houses are making hay. They have recently taken up 500,000 shares which they had on option at 12s. 6d. The shares stand in the market today at 27s. 6d., so that on this little deal alone the controlling houses made a profit of £375,000, and got £12,000 commission for doing it. I would like to mention the Cinderella mine. Hon. members will probably remember that the Cinderella mine was closed down for 14 years, because there was said to be no money to develop it, and the controlling house, on behalf of its shareholders and debenture holders, shed crocodile tears because the Government would not assist them. Through the market manipulation following amalgamation, the cash received, and the value of the shares held by those interested in this mine, which a year ago was considered to be bankrupt, is £1,000,000. So I think hon. members will agree with me that under these circumstances the Minister and the Government were quite right in refusing to guarantee anything on behalf of this company, and it proves what a scandal it was that a mine of this description should be closed down for 14 years. No doubt, acting on the advice of the then Government Mining Engineer, Sir Robert Kotze, the Government set its face against State mining. What I would like to know is, whether the Government is going to adopt a policy of State mining, or, Micawber-like, to wait for something to turn up. I would suggest a scheme that has had the approval of one of the cutest mining men in this country, Sir J. B. Robinson. In 1925, when the Government advertised for someone to take up one of its areas, Sir J. B. Robinson offered, on a five per cent. commission, to float a company to take up one of the areas. I am going to repeat that suggestion, but, instead of putting it in the hands of a private individual, I would like one of the Government officials to be employed for this purpose. I would suggest that a company should be floated with a capital of £1,500,000, and that shares should be offered to the public at 5s. per share cash, and the balance paid as required, as is being done in the case of the Geduld East. I am satisfied that if this were done, the public would apply for the shares in great numbers. The Government Areas has been a great success, and when the public were invited to subscribe for shares in that mine, the shares were largely over applied for, despite the fact that the value of the Far East Rand was then unknown. The same thing, I am sure, will occur again. It is said that in this country the amount standing to depositors in savings banks per head of population is small as compared with other countries. The reason for that is that in this country, and particularly in the Transvaal, the average man does not put his money into savings banks, but prefers to go in for dealings on the stock exchange, and for this reason I am quite satisfied that the shares will be eagerly taken up. It might be said that the big mining houses would not participate, but I am not so sure about that. They are just as keen on making profits as other people, and would also like to get control. But even if they do not participate, they can be done without. People who follow mining will remember that a few years ago the Wit Deep Mines were on the point of being closed down by the Corner House, I believe it was. Then the small shareholders got together, and threw out the nominee directors, and took control of the mines themselves. Ever since that, the mine has never looked back. It has paid dividends regularly, and is now one of the most steady going mines on the Rand. I do not see any reason why the same thing should not be done here. [Time limit.]

The last speaker advocated State mining, and I wonder if the Government will go in for it, and if that is to be one of the prices we shall have to pay for the Pact. As for me, I do not believe in the truth of what one of the predecessors of the Minister (Mr. Sauer) said when he was asked why a certain thing had cost so much. He replied that he could not say, but that there was one thing which was always the case, viz., that what a private person could do for 10s. would always cost the State £1. If the Government is asked to undertake such things, then I hope that it will bear the words of Mr. Sauer in mind. I fear that we shall as it is have an experience with the iron and steel industry.

Do you hope so?

No, but I am afraid of it.

You Saps are always afraid of tackling a thing.

The matter I actually want to speak about is Act No. 36 of 1920 in connection with customs tariffs and excise duties. When it was before the House it was said from this side that it was feared that it would have the result of causing loss to the small manufacturers. Unfortunately, we find that that has already been the case. The result of the provision that articles which are imported to be made up in South Africa have to be directly imported by the manufacturer, who intends to make them up, in order to escape the higher customs duty, is that the large manufacturer if he wants to escape the duty must no longer buy from the wholesale merchants as he used to do, but import himself. Because the articles are free of duty, it makes things so much cheaper for him. The provision that the manufacturer who imports articles must himself make them up and may not sell them has an injurious effect on the smaller manufacturer. The latter finds now that if he wants a thing he can only get it from the retail merchant, because on account of the large manufacturers, who work at all on a large scale, importing themselves, the wholesale merchants no longer import the articles. The small manufacturers formerly went to the manufacturers to buy their supplies, and the latter imported sufficient and had the right to sell, but the large manufacturers no longer have this right. The wholesale merchant finds that it is no longer worth his while to import the articles and, therefore, the small manufacturers have to go and buy from the retail merchants, and pay the customs duty. The article costs so much more that the small manufacturer cannot compete with a man who manufactures on a large scale. There is a case where a harness maker complained to me that he formerly bought his supplies from a certain manufacturer, but that the latter, since the coming into force of the Act, can no longer sell to him. He now has the greatest difficulty, because he has to buy from the retail merchant at a price which makes it impossible for him to compete with the large manufacturer. When the Minister was at Colesberg a harness maker brought this to his notice, and he promised to go into the matter. The man, however, told me that he heard no more about it, and I promised to mention it in the House. This is a bona fide case where the bread is taken out a man’s mouth. He told me that he could now only do repairs, but could not make new harness. Every small manufacturer will suffer as long as only the large manufacturers can get the benefit of free importation.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a request, which will be made to the Board of Trade to make a thorough investigation into the cement business. We have given this industry protection for a large number of years, and yet at the present time, unable to supply the need’s of South Africa, they are fulfilling contracts outside the Union and compelling the inhabitants of the Union to pay an enhanced price, not for the benefit of the industries of South Africa, but just to keep up the price. I would like him to go into this matter and to carry out the true principle of protection; that is, that it should be to supply the needs of the people of the Union of South Africa.

I want to raise a matter that I referred to earlier in the session, and that is, I want to bring to the attention of the Minister and the committee the events which led up to, I won’t say the dismissal, but the retirement of Sir Robert Kotze. Sir Robert Kotze, I need hardly say, is a man who served this country with great distinction for many years. It naturally came as a great shock to many of us when we learned that he had been told, in a summary manner, that the Government no longer required his services. I know the present Minister of Mines is not personally responsible for that, because it was done while he was out of the country. But I want to bring to the attention of the committee the events which led up to that, because they seem to me to throw a very serious light on the manner in which appointments have been made to high positions in the public service, and on the position to which the Public Service Commission has been relegated under the practice which now appears to obtain in regard to the making of these appointments. The matter which led up to the retirement of Sir Robert Kotze was the appointment of the chief inspector of machinery. A vacancy occurred in that appointment, which is one of very great importance under the Government mining engineer. That appointment had been vacant for some time, and had been filled by an acting appointment; one of the inspectors had been acting pending the making of a permanent appointment. The papers were laid on the Table by the Minister, and I am quoting from those papers. Sir Robert Kotze, who was Government mining engineer, wrote to the Secretary for Mines and Industries in the 30th August, 1926, with reference to what he understood was intended to be a permanent appointment to the position of chief inspector of machinery, and after sending certain documents regarding the qualifications of various candidates, he said—

From a subsequent letter from the department to Sir Robert, it would appear that on the 10th September an opportunity was given to Sir Robert Kotze of seeing the acting Minister of Mines and discussing the matter with him, but it would appear that there was some misunderstanding in Sir Robert Kotze’s mind as to what the effect of that conversation was. It would appear that the acting Minister of Mines seems to have been under the impression that he had told Sir Robert Kotze directly that he was going to appoint as chief inspector of machinery Mr. Mullins, who was one of the inspectors, but Sir Robert does not appear to have understood that, as will be apparent from a subsequent letter. The next letter is on the 16th September, from the Secretary for Mines to the Public Service Commission. This is from the Minister’s department to the Public Service Commission, and it says—

That appears to me to be a reversal of the ordinary procedure of the functions of the Public Service Commission. The law lays down that before an appointment can be made there must be a recommendation from the commission, which comes up to the Minister concerned, and he is not bound to accept their recommendation, but if he does not do so it is the duty of the Public Service Commission to report the matter to Parliament. But here the process seems to me to be reversed. The Minister writes saying “he proposes to appoint so-and-so and do you recommend or not?” The next letter is one from Sir Robert Kotze to the department, and it is from that letter that I come to the conclusion that he must have misunderstood what happened at the interview with the acting Minister of Mines. He says—

“You” is the Secretary for Mines and Industries. I fully admit that is a very serious statement for a public servant to make, and I draw from it the inference that it could only be justified by a very grave objection—not of a personal nature, but on public grounds—to the appointment that was about to be made. This person who was to be appointed was to fill the post of one of the chief officials under the Government mining engineer; he was a man with whom the Government mining engineer would have to work, and on whose advice he would, to a large extent, have to rely. Therefore, he felt it was a matter of very great importance to him that a person should not be appointed who, in his opinion, was unfitted for the post. Anyhow, he made that statement, and took his official life into his hands, so to speak. He said that if that appointment was made he should feel compelled to resign. The answer to that was a letter from the department to the Government mining engineer to say that his letter had been submitted to the Minister, and that with reference to its contents—

The letter from the Government mining engineer states that he heard only verbally of the Minister’s intention to make the appointment, but in this letter which comes from the department the statement was made that the Minister told Sir Robert Kotze on the 10th of November that when he saw him he told him it was his intention to appoint Mr. Mullins. That, again, seems to throw an interesting light on the position allotted to the Public Service Commission by this Government. On the 10th of September the Minister says it is his intention to appoint Mr. Mullins, and on the 16th of September a letter is sent asking them for their advice. [Time limit.]

Can I move as an unopposed motion that the hon. member be allowed to continue?

Not in the committee stage.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the continual shortage of native labour on the mines, and whether the Government will consider if it would not be wise to remodel their policy, at least to some extent? The report of the president of the Chamber of Mines dealing with labour last year stated that the maximum requirement of 194,000 natives had never been reached, despite active recruiting. No fewer than 131,000 British South African blacks were engaged, and the highest total employed was 185,000. I take it that 131,000 exhausts the supply available of Union natives, and if the gold mines are taking 60,000 natives from the Portuguese territories I cannot see why they should not make up their maximum. We might then say to the companies—

The Minister is entitled to make an agreement and say—

Another matter. The Minister said he would watch during the year the question of the boot supply which had been conceded to the companies. The Labour party object to mining companies engaging in trading, yet the concession was made to them to trade in boots. We know it was not the Minister of Mines who did this, but our party leader, the Minister of Defence, when meeting the Chamber of Mines. That boot business should never have been given to mining companies. The Minister of Defence, like the Minister of Finance, is exceedingly liberal towards political foes. Recently the latter surrendered £180,000 a year revenue to the mines, and as it is estimated the companies made 2s. 6d. a pair on 170,000 pairs of boots, they enjoyed £25,000 profit which should have gone into the pockets of traders. I am assured that either the companies or compound managers and other officials made that profit. The companies evince no gratitude whatever for these concessions. I wish to emphasize the necessity for backing up the efforts of the Union trade commissioners in New York. Our administrative office there is being starved, and we shall not get a bigger return for our efforts until more financial assistance is forthcoming. It is estimated that American tourists spend abroad over £40,000,000 a year. Many are tired of visiting other parts of the world, and look towards South Africa as a fresh country to explore, and if we spend an additional sum in making our attractions better known, I am told we can be quite sure that next year we shall have tourist visitors who will spend a million in the Union. If we were to double the export duty on diamonds, and so have our rough stones cut here, the diamonds we could then sell to Americans would be astonishing. However. I suppose I am again pleading for the politically impossible. The grant of £1,200 to the Imperial Institute is, I am informed, for its section dealing with minerals. If the grant is for the institute itself, I would vote for it with both hands, because of the facilities the institute gives to visitors from South Africa, but if the grant is for the mineral branch, it is time we reconsidered it for the wants of institutions in South Africa.

In order to bring the matter properly before the committee, I wish to move—

I make the reduction small, so as not to appear ungrateful. I was dealing just now with a letter from the Minister to Sir Robert Kotzé, in which he informed him that on September 10 he had an interview with him and told him definitely that he intended to appoint Mr. Mullins as inspector of machinery. The letter stated—

That was not what seemed to be a dismissal, although it is couched in language in which one would dismiss a servant, but in effect it was an intimation to Sir Robert Kotzé that as he was over the age at which he could legally be entitled to retire on pension, the Government intended to exercise its rights and that it was not prepared to retain his services in view of the fact that he had reached the age at which they had the right to ask him to retire. But it was as I said, tantamount to a dismissal on account of his having used language to the Minister which the Minister thought improper, coming from an officer in his position. Those of us who know Sir Robert Kotzé can appreciate that what made him use language of that kind were exceptional circumstances which he thought were of the gravest character. The appointment he held to be totally unsuitable from the point of view of the public service. Sir Robert replied—

And he goes on to discuss the date of his retirement. Then comes the statement setting out the grounds on which he thinks this appointment was unsuitable. It reads—

The facts are the Public Service Commission duly recommended the appointment of Mr. Mullins and he was duly appointed. I want to know what were his qualifications for the post? He was not a senior officer; there were other officials senior to him. He was not bilingual, so it was not a question of over-riding officials who were senior on the ground that they were not qualified in both languages. That has been done in the past and very often it is justified. In this case the qualification was not there, and knowing Sir Robert Kotzé there is no reason for rejecting the statement of the mining engineer that this official was not qualified by education or technical experience to hold a post such as that of chief inspector of machinery. Therefore, I think we are justified in asking what were the qualifications this man possessed which not only led to the Government proposing him for the appointment but led to the Government forcing his appointment at the cost of losing an official with the experience, and I might almost say a world-wide reputation, of Sir Robert Kotzé. The appointment was forced through at the cost of losing his services and the Minister who did it was only the acting Minister. He did not wait until his colleague, who was the Minister of Mines, came back. Surely, there must have been some grounds on which the Government felt justified in taking this step. Another aspect of the matter is the manner in which the recommendations of the Public Service Commission are treated. It is required under the law for appointments and promotions in the service to come from the Public Service Commission. The present Public Service Commission was recently installed in office in place of the former commission whose appointments were not renewed, although their retirement cost the country a lot in pensions and retirement allowances, because they were not in sympathy with the policy of the Government. Are we to suppose we have now got a commission guaranteed to be in sympathy with the policy of the Government? I think the main value of a commission such as the Public Service Commission is that the Government should not be able to rely upon them being in sympathy with what they want. They should be men of independent judgment. That is the great value of a public service commission, and if we are going to have one simply to be in sympathy with the policy of the Government, and say exactly what the Government wants them to say, then the value of the commission has gone. We know the spirit which is brought to these matters. We had a telling illustration the other day when discussing the railway budget, where reference was made to a certain report from railway officials in regard to civilized labour. That report in some respects criticized the policy and we had a strong protest from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge against such officials being allowed to make such a report which was not in sympathy with the Government. He said if the Government had the strength it would not allow that report. In other words they would require their officials to say exactly what they wanted to be said. That is what I am afraid of and that is why I think the question is important. We must see that a body like the Public Service Commission—put there partly to protect the public service against political discrimination and largely to protect the public against having a, civil service swayed by political motives—it is our business to see this public service commission is what it was intended to be, a body which is going to express its opinions independently of what it thinks the Government may want. If it is to be told that the Government intends to appoint so and so “What do you recommend?” That is placing the Public Service Commission in a false position. I do not say the Government must always be bound by the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. The Government are responsible to Parliament and the Public Service Commission is not responsible. So the Government must take the responsibility. That commission was appointed for the purpose of being a body that would report independently as to what it might think and report on any matter of appointments and promotions solely on the grounds of what they considered would be the most efficient recommendation they could make. They were put there to recommend officials for appointment or promotion solely on the ground of getting the best man into the place, and not on the ground of recommending a man whom they thought or might have reason to think that the Government wanted to appoint. If they are going to follow that line of being subservient to what they think or are told is the intention of the Government, then they are not discharging the function for which they were appointed under the law, and they might just as well not be there at all. That is why this incident has a more than merely temporary importance. It shows the drift of affairs, it shows the spirit which is growing up in the service and it shows the place which is assigned to the Public Service Commission in the outlook of the Government, and therefore I think it is right that this committee should know what were the reasons that prompted the Government to make this appointment, an appointment that has cost us the services of Sir Robert Kotzé, and an appointment which has definitely assigned to the Public Service Commission a position of purely secondary importance, a position in which it is made to look not to the welfare of the service as a whole, not whether each particular official is even fitted to serve the Government in that particular capacity, but in which it has to look to what can be discovered to be the intentions of the Government, and do what they want it to do. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an explanation of this matter which will take away from it that aspect, which, I must say, to me, at any rate, it at present bears.

There was one thing we expected the Government to do when they took office, and that was to go into the question of what fits are made in compounds and what becomes of those profits. That would be a perfectly legitimate thing for a departmental enquiry at least. The position in regard to it is that, first of all, we do not expect companies to make any profit whatever on their trading with their employees.

They are not allowed to trade with them.

The hon. gentleman is very ready at giving information, and we are delighted to have it, because we look to him for that lead which always comes from him with such grace, especially in the higher professional position which he has now reached, and on which I wish to congratulate him. The other day, when he was putting the Prime Minister through his facings and also the Minister of Justice, it reminded me of a tradition in school that the boy who brings a cane as a present to the master is usually the one first to have it inflicted upon him. True, technically, companies are not allowed to trade; so far as the gold mines are concerned, we endeavour to limit them. Now we come to other compounds where companies are allowed to trade, providing they purchase the goods locally and then sell to the natives employed. Take the Premier Mine for one, does that mine make a profit out of the boys, or does it not? It is supposed to make no profit whatever. Then there are other companies also which, to my knowledge, there have been serious complaints about. One of these companies, a native told me, subdivides a bag of meal, for instance, and it is sold to the boys in 5 or 10-lb. packages. I was told the company makes a large profit. So with regard to sugar, and many other things. Natives complain bitterly that in the compounds they are obliged to pay far more through various goods being divided than they would pay in the stores. That is one of the things I expected this Government to make a close enquiry into. We hoped with the change which has taken place in regard to departmental administration, that that matter would be gone closely into, because it has a bearing far beyond the question of merely making profits. Take our leading merchants at Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and elsewhere. Goods must legally be purchased locally. I know of a town where there is a very large sample room which has in it everything from a German small-tooth comb to, say, a United States army blanket. The companies’ representatives look through the showroom and order what they want. I am not going to say that particular showroom belongs to a Cape Town merchant or a Port Elizabeth merchant or a Johannesburg merchant, but I do venture to say this—if the owner of that showroom were in this Parliament he would not get up and adversely criticize, say, De Beers Company at Kimberley, because if he did so the orders his firm would get through that sample showroom, from that company, would not fill a quill tooth-pick. That is just where the whole thing dovetails into our political life. It enters into our politics, even into our Houses of Parliament, if I may say so without being called to order. Certainly while this Government has the opportunity, an opportunity which may be lost at any time, it should go closely into this question of what these companies do with compound trading profits. I hope this Government is going to shake off connection with anything that may tend to bring it under the great financial interests which have wrecked the reputation of Government after Government, and kept this country so far behind other parts of the empire.

There are a few points about which I should like information from the Minister. In the first place, I want to ask him whether he is able and prepared to give the information about the present position of the platinum mines. We are aware that many people have invested money in South Africa in the platinum fields. Whether it was wise or foolish, I leave alone, but it is desirable that the Minister should give us more information about the future of the platinum fields and about the policy he will follow in developing the mines. I should also like information whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in connection with the proclamation of farms and mynpachts will have any influence on the policy now being followed by the Minister. My second point is one already mentioned by the hon. member for South Peninsula Sir Drummond Chaplin), viz., the sum of £4,000 on the estimates for construction and maintenance of roads, drifts, etc. It seems to me that £4,000 is a stereotyped amount which comes up on the estimates every year, because it was once put at that. Quite a number of years ago the amount was £10,000, and it was then reduced to £4,000, and has always remained so. I am surprised in view of the progress of mining operations in the country districts. I am not only speaking about the platinum fields, but also with regard to mining operation in asbestos, chrome, tin and copper. Those are all mines which are concerned in the amount of £4,000. It seems to me that the Witwatersrand and the diamond mining industry are attracting so much attention that very little attention can be given to the small mines in the outside districts, although the requirements of the mines also increases every year as their number increases. I want to ask the Minister to exhibit more sympathy towards the small mines, and to again increase the sum of £4,000 to at least the amount it stood at before, viz., £10,000. A third point the Minister is well acquainted with, viz., the inadequate regulations and legislation in connection with prospecting operations and the proclamation of farms. I just wanted to ask him the question whether he intends next year—I know it is too late this year—to introduce amendments to the gold law in order to remove the objections of many persons in relation to the proclamation and throwing open of farms.

I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in regard to the resignation of Sir Robert Kotzé. I have listened very attentively to the hon. member, but if he will take his mind back, history is repeating itself, because the same agitation took place when Sir Robert Kotzé was appointed to that office. At that time the late General Botha was accused of being a racialist for appointing Kotzé to that job. The same argument used by the hon. member for Yeoville was used by the press of the Witwatersrand when he was appointed. The late Government was accused of the same thing as the present Government is being accused of.

Evidently you were not here.

I remember the agitation that was going on. History is repeating itself. I do not know Mr. Mullins, or anything about the appointment, but I do know that on receiving such an impertinent letter—

any employer would accept the resignation. The matter I want to draw attention to is a very small one, and that is in connection with inquiries into fatal accidents on mines. Hon. members will remember that last year there was a big accident in a coal mine in Natal. When it came to a question of appointing a commission of enquiry, the Minister was quite prepared that the workers’ trade union should be represented, but he found the law was against him, and they had to have a judicial inquiry. The men have felt much aggrieved at that, because circumstances in the coal mines to-day are not what they were years ago. The men are organized; they are intelligent men, and they have a first-hand experience and knowledge of conditions under ground, and they would be able to bring out facts in an inquiry which even a mining inspector would not be able to bring out. They have made representations to the Minister and the trade union congress has also made representation that at these inquiries practical men should be represented. I would like the Minister to make a statement as to the steps he has taken or proposes to take to bring about a change.

I would not have taken notice of the remarks from the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) unless he had a reputation as a diamond mining expert. Naturally the hon. member, having been closely connected with diamond mining in the course of his varied career, poses as an authority on compounds and the profits made in those compounds. He must not think that every mine is managed on the same basis as the Roberts Victor, where, I have no doubt, they made big profits in the compounds, but at the same time, the public lost their money. I, for one find a great difference between making profits out of a compound and making them out of the public who have been gulled by misrepresentation. The hon. member insinuated—he did not come out into the open like a Britisher— that the De Beers Company was making enormous sums of money out of the compounds. The compounds are run at a loss. I make that statement positively. All the requirements of the compounds are purchased from merchants in Kimberley. Nothing is purchased outside. There is no profit made at all. I state that in reply to his insinuation that enormous profits have been made in the compounds, not used for the benefit of the country, but in a dangerous way. The hon. member is not the only delinquent, because I had to refute this statement many times in this and the old Cape House of Assembly. The fact remains that no profits are made out of the compounds of the De Beers mines. I cannot speak for other companies, because I have not the knowledge.

I should be delighted indeed if the Government could be persuaded that profits are not made. So far as insinuations are concerned, I simply mentioned what had been brought to my notice in regard to certain compounds. If they are run at a loss, then, if the Government would get a report and make it known, it would carry much greater weight than any coming from the hon. member for Beaconsfield. He has insinuated that a company with which I was once connected made profits from its compound. It certainly did. I would ask him why it is that the company floated and run by his friendly rivals, Lewis & Marks, is always selected by him for attack. Mr. Isaac Lewis, who recently died, was respected here and in London. For the late Senator Marks I entertained a very great and sincere regard. There is no evidence that the company was fraudulent—it was certainly as honest as the Jagersfontein company, of which the hon. gentleman is chairman—can I say more than that? The Jagersfontein company put out balance sheets which it was said by a former government in this House, were not in accordance with the law, but the Government declined to take steps to ensure compliance. If mine labourers are fed at a loss and do not earn their keep, things should be put on a fairer basis to the company!

I am not going into the Robert Victor affair, of which the hon. member was the chairman, but I have been chairman of the Jagersfontein company for a quarter of a century and I defy the hon. member to state or to convince anybody that a false financial statement was ever printed or distributed either to shareholders or to this House. I challenge the hon. member to say there is the slightest foundation for it.

I accept the challenge of the hon. member, and ask him if his company did not put in its accounts again and again that diamonds on hand were reckoned as valueless —a thing that would not be allowed to any merchant company in rendering an annual statement to Government. It would probably lead to a prosecution under the law.

That was not what you said just now. You said that a balance sheet had been submitted to this House which was false.

I have yet to learn that a false balance sheet is one that treats its assets at low instead of high values. The hon. member is not in the habit of depreciating the value of anything in which he is interested. All the diamond companies take into account their stocks at a low rate, because it is an article of pure luxury, as they do not know what it will realize. If that is an “informed statement” of the hon. member’s, he never spoke the truth in his life.

When my time expired I was talking about the pegging. All pegging of a prospecting area in Namaqualand was lawfully done. Most of it was done by practical farmers who were not lawyers. When they pegged they believed they were acting according to law. If it was done according to law and if the law says that a man can prospect for the time his licence is available for (12 months, in the Act) then I want to ask the Minister what will be the case where the proclamation was issued before the period for which the licence was issued has elapsed. The money is still lying with the magistrate and the people have the licences in their pockets. Will they have an opportunity of prospecting for the time to which, according to the licence, they are entitled? If the Minister tells me that it is said on the licence “for one month paid in advance” then I ask the Minister whether the wording of the licences differs from Act No. 5 of 1899. If there is a difference who is responsible for it? Is it the Government who has intentionally made an exception? On the other hand if the licence was issued according to law then it seems to me the man is entitled to prospect for a year. The Minister on the other hand has the right of issuing a proclamation to stop prospecting, but what about the period which has still to run? Then I want to raise the matter of the prospected area being lost to the man who has done the prospecting. If it is so then the Minister should say whether he will prohibit all prospecting when he hears where diamonds are to be found.

It will be prohibited until the Lichtenburg fields are worked out.

When the Lichtenburg fields are worked out then they will all be poorer than they are to-day. If we are to look at Lichtenburg then nothing will be done in Namaqualand. Why does the Minister not close the Lichtenburg fields? If he can stop prospecting in Namaqualand he will also be able to do so if more diamonds are discovered in the Free State or Transvaal? Will the Minister proclaim them also? I want to remind the Minister that when a man is strong he should be merciful and if he has the law with him then he must not abuse it. Under the old Acts, there are powers in the hands of the Minister which can be abused. In one part diamonds were found in a small area, but the largest part was not prospected and yet it comes under the proclamation. There are thousands of miles where no pegging has taken place and where people may not look to see if there are any diamonds. It must never be forgotten that there are people who have sold farms for a bagatelle because the closing has given the buyers a chance. Who is the suffering party? It is the practical farmer who has been there for years. If prospecting is stopped they will have few chances. I hope the Minister will give me a plain answer.

I would just like to ask the Minister with regard to the item fisheries and I want to support what has been said with regard to the hope that the Government will take some action to develop our fishery harbours round the coast. I would also like to ask the Minister—it is a matter of considerable importance and interest—the way in which that £10,000 is being used. I am glad to see it is on the vote again. Is it the settled policy to plan a campaign as it were? I am glad to see that our fishing exports have been steadily growing and that a considerable amount is going to the United Kingdom, where I believe there are great potentialities for our fish as well as our fruit and other produce. I hope everything possible will be done to develop our fishing harbours.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) and to congratulate the Minister and Mr. Warington Smyth on the interest they have taken in stocking our streams with trout. I wish at the same time to point out the danger of allowing carp to be placed in our rivers, for if that is done no trout will be left in a few years. In the district I represent we have some very fine trout streams and we have hundreds of visitors—South Africans overseas—who are attracted by the trout fishing. Mr. Warington-Smyth in his introduction to the report on the inland fisheries remarks that the fate of carp-ridden rivers as disclosed in the report emphasises the danger of stocking rivers with carp. Carp so muddied the water in the Mount Frere reservoir that it had to be emptied and it was found four or five years after the first carp had been placed in the reservoir that they had increased to such an extent that when the reservoir was emptied there were six wheelbarrows of full-grown carp and millions of young ones. I have seen rivers in the Eastern Province one seething mass of carp. The provincial councils are responsible for the trout hatcheries and the Minister should introduce legislation prohibiting the placing of carp in rivers suitable for trout.

I believe that the Minister has not yet received the second report of the Commission on Fishing Harbours. It would be wiser for the Minister to wait until he receives the second report on the coastal fisheries, harbours and shelters before taking any action, for if we commit ourselves to developing one area before we have all the information in front of us, there is a risk of neglecting an equally good or better area, simply because we are not fully informed as to its potentialities before undertaking expenditure. I wish to endorse very strongly all that has been said as to the value of trout fishing in inland waters, but there are many other edible fish which should be introduced, especially to those rivers where trout will not prosper. Carp are not a good edible fish, and are most destructive to trout, and should be eliminated. One hen carp is responsible for 500,000 eggs every season. I wish to refer to the question of the importation of fruit pulp, regarding which I asked a question on February 8th. The total amount of fruit pulp imported into the Union last year was 401,010 lbs., 374,168 lbs. of this being from Australia, which supplies us with 90 per cent. in both quantity and value of this importation. When I raised this question last February, I was told that the fruit pulp imported was made from fruit not grown here. A farmer near me, however, was told to stop growing strawberries, as the jam factory did not require that fruit, which is largely grown in the Western Province. There is not much in fruit growing at present, and it is not encouraging to our fruit growers to find that strawberry, raspberry and even apricot fruit pulp is imported when we produce apricots in thousands of tons, and strawberries on a large scale. We cannot stop manufacturers importing it, but we must discourage it. We are looking to the fruit industry, especially deciduous fruits here in the Western Province and the Eastern Province, and the citrus fruit from inland and the eastern coast, as something which is going to be one of the biggest industries in the country. I do not want to mention names of firms in this House, but it is a fact that the production of jam in the country is mostly in the hands of one big firm, which has bought up other factories. We cannot prevent these people from introducing stuff from overseas, unless we deliberately undertake the extreme policy of protection as proclaimed so loudly from the Government benches. Our primary producers especially ought to be protected. I would, therefore, rather see a stiff protective duty on fruit pulp than protection for the manufacture of shirts. We can produce ample fruit pulp here if there is a market.

Why cannot we produce it as cheap as Australia?

I think that is a matter of turnover, largely, of soil fertility and methods of farming. The point is that the people who are chiefly handling the jam factories in this country are the makers of jam in Australia. The overseas market for the Australian product is the east, and the overseas market for this country also is East Africa and the east generally. I think it is fairly obvious that firms whose main market for export is the same as that for their Australian product will not aim at over-production or more production here than will meet the requirements of this country. The figures I have given are purely for fruit pulp. Jam in tins and glass jars and preserved fruit imported are over and above these figures. I think we look especially to this Government to carry out its proclaimed policy of protection, and here is one case where protection is quite legitimate, and should be given. I know I am up against my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on this question, but I go further and refer again to the chicory industry of this country. It has got what on paper sounds a big enough protection, but I would like to see the duty on chicory the same, whether ground or in the raw state.

Fourpence a pound?

Fourpence a pound sounds high enough, but I want an equal duty for all classes of imported chicory. I want to put in this word on behalf of the fruit growers, and to ask the Minister to take into consideration what can be done to give protection to the growers, and to encourage the establishment of jam factories on a proper scale here. I have been told it is a question of the price of sugar, but the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) assures me that if sugar is used in the manufacture of jam, a rebate is made which adjusts the matter.

I wish the Minister would tell me what exactly is the object of that unsightly structure on the foreshore at St. James. It looks like a broken-down municipal stable. I have been told it is an aquarium for fishery research work. I have had occasion to go in there, and I fail to see what it is for. It is an eyesore to the inhabitants, and on getting inside I found two sand sharks looking very much ashamed of themselves, three melancholy crayfish and two sardines. They constituted the total inhabitants of the aquarium.

At any rate, it was some sign of past life.

I know the hon. gentlemen on that side live in the past and don’t look to the future. That building is a grievance. As I have been disenfranchised under this iniquitous electoral law, I am seriously thinking of being registered in the South Peninsula. I am disenfranchised regularly when I come to Parliament, and I am disenfranchised again under this preposterous Bill. That is how I come to be taking an interest in the affairs of St. James. It is the only spot left in the Union where an unfortunate member of Parliament like myself is likely to find a resting place.

A final resting place?

This sardine factory is a standing grievance with the residents of St. James, and with the residents of the Peninsula generally, because St. James is a very popular playground. I think the place ought to be dynamited and blown off the face of the earth. Another matter was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), and that is the weighing machines at the station. When a man reaches my age and weight, it gives him a shock to find in the morning he weighs 11 stone 6, and in the evening he turns the scale at 13 stone 6. If a merchant is found with false scales, the Minister will prosecute him, yet we find the Railway Department running a whole series of false scales. I tested the thing myself four times last year, and I wrote to the papers about it, but they did not take any notice, so I come to a higher authority.

Was it a penny in the slot?

I tried the penny in the slot, and was extravagant enough to try the threepenny one, but they all varied four times in one day.

Never mind. Your weight is accurately appraised here.

I know it is on this side of the House, and I hope it is on that side. I suggest the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) should walk down to the Cape Town railway station to try these machines, and I will provide the funds, then let him report to the Minister. It is not only at Cape Town, but along the suburban lines generally. All these things are out of order.

Will you be responsible if the hon. member for Riversdale breaks the machine?

No, but I will insure him. The penny in the slot chocolate machines suffer from a similar disadvantage. I tested a chocolate machine at Fish Hoek the other day with my small children.

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