laid on the Table the report of the Hospital Survey Committee.

May I ask if that report will be printed?

I understand that it has been printed.

Before the first Order is read I want to move—

The reason for this is that all the printers were occupied in printing the Precious Stones Bill and therefore the printed Native Administration Bill will only reach us at about 12 or 12.30.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I would like some information with regard to item No. 3. What are you going to do with that land at Ndabeni? Is it going back to the municipality? I would like to know whether it is the same with the other land mentioned.

There has been correspondence about it, but I cannot really tell my hon. friend at the moment what is the real position.

In this schedule, which I have just received, I would like to know whether there is any mention of two or three pieces of land forming portion of the township of Pomeroy in the northern part of Natal. There has been some discussion going on between the Native Affairs Department and the Lands Department. I understand from the Minister of Lands that he is very anxious to have this land set aside for European settlement. It is not in, but it adjoins, a native location. The Native Affairs Department has put up a claim for this land, and so far there has been naturally a difference of opinion between the two departments.

I must say I cannot say whether this is included in this.

In a hurried glance I could not find it either.

I think not.

Perhaps the Minister would get the information with regard to Uitvlugt and the Ndabeni location to which the hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has referred. What is the intention with regard to Uitvlugt?

So far the Government is not using it for any particular purpose.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Amendments considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Perhaps the Minister could give us some information with regard to item 5 in the schedule? Certain land has been given in exchange and £10,000 paid. It is the duty of every hon. member to watch transfers of this nature," and I hope the officials have thoroughly satisfied themselves that it is a fair bargain from the native point of view.

It is one of the inherited cases. I immediately set about making the best inquiry I could to see that the interests of the natives are properly safeguarded. At the session before last I think it was, it was decided that a commission should be appointed by the Government to go into the matter again, and it was done. The commission, with Mr. Wheelwright, the chief native commissioner, again reported that it was favourable to the native interests, but at the same time there was some difference as to whether planters’ interests were looked up.

I see there are certain farms excluded from reservation in that area, and I presume that is not any curtailment of the lands available for natives.

These are lands we received in exchange for the land we have given.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 5 and amendments in Clause 7 put and agreed to.

On amendments in Clause 6,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 6, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 8 to 12 and amendments in lines 3 to 44 of Clause 13 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 13 and amendments in Clauses 14 to 18 and in lines 71 and 72 of Clause 19 put and agreed to.

On amendment in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Clause 19,

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I appeal to the Minister as he has increased the owner’s rights to 220 claims in the Transvaal and to 400 claims in the Cape, O.F.S. and Natal, that he should go the whole hog and make the number 400 for the whole of the Union. This is a consolidating measure and the Minister has not hesitated to give away some State rights and to take away rights from owners simply to have equality. But he does not agree to putting the Transvaal on the same footing as the other provinces. When one remembers that there are 44½ claims in one morgen, and as my suggestion would only mean giving the Transvaal owner an additional 1½ morgen of his own farm in claims, what I ask is not a great matter.

I am afraid that cannot be done without the Governor-General’s recommendation. His Excellency’s recommendation is given only for the amendment as it appears on the paper.

Could the Minister not put the matter right in the Senate?

It is an absurdity to increase the number of claims as suggested by the hon. member. The 400 claims for the Cape apply only to a limited number of farms, but in respect of 94,000 farms the right remains at 50 claims. With that justification therefore, can we raise the Transvaal’s number to 400 claims?

Can we discuss this?

It is no use debating whether these claims should be increased or not because you must have the Governor-General’s recommendation.

There is no recommendation of his Excellency before the House except for 235.

I should like to be clear about the number of claims in the Cape Province. The Minister says that some of the farms get 400 owner’s claims, but how many are given on the greater number of the farms?

50.

On a point of order do I understand from you, sir, and the Minister, that the Governor-General’s recommendation has not been secured in connection with the extending of the number of claims?

It has been secured, so far as the amendment is concerned.

But not so far as the suggestion of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) is concerned?

That is so.

Is it not then competent for a member of the House to address the Minister and press on him to secure these recommendations from the Governor-General, and if necessary, to make a recommendation in another place?

Yes, certainly, but one wishes to avoid futile discussion.

I don’t propose getting the consent of his Excellency. There must be some reasonable finality somewhere.

There is a strong feeling in the Transvaal that this is the one province that has given more mineral rights and tremendous sums of money to the State than any other of the provinces, and here the Minister has an opportunity of levelling up and taking away part of their grievance. In 1908 we were both in the same Parliament and on that occasion owners’ rights were taken away to get a consolidating measure. He was as strong as I was in asking the Government not to take more rights away from the owners, yet year after year more rights have been taken away, and now for the sake of one-and-a-half morgen extra to the owners he sticks and says, “No I will not make this.” In the other provinces he gives away to get uniformity, but here he obstinately says “no.”

What is the use of making the constant allegations of obstinacy? It will not avail you. I deny there is any obstinacy. I have shown the greatest patience to everybody in connection with this.

I know the Minister is very touchy, but I am appealing to him seriously and I do not know that I can use a politer word than that. Surely the Minister is going to meet us on this point. It is all very well for him to say he would give Natal and the Free State 400. We know there are no diamonds in Natal, so it is only pretending to give a concession.

The Minister already proposes to give 235 claims instead of 220, and yet he says we must have finality. If he can do this, why cannot he go further’ He would not be doing any harm by giving more, and the mere fact of his saying there must be finality is no argument.

I moved an amendment to this clause yesterday, but it was ruled out of order by the Chairman because the consent of the Governor-General had to be got to the increase. I did not have the opportunity then my amendment. Now I notice that the Minister has made an alteration. Was it not possible for the Minister to make the number of claims 250?

The Minister has now obtained the consent of the Governor-General for an increase up to 235, but without the consent of the Governor-General an amendment cannot be moved to increase the number above 235.

The Minister told the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) yesterday that he was ready to split the difference.

I just want to explain—

The hon. the Minister is not entitled to reply.

As an unopposed motion, sir, if the House agrees, because the hon. Minister has a lot to explain.

The claims have been allocated to Natal and the Cape Province in respect of a small percentage of farms with free titles. Under the Cape law it has always been that they are entitled to 50 owners’ claims, and in the Transvaal for years the owners’ claims have been confined to 5Ó. They are now increased to 235. By what colour of right can we increase them to 400?

In the interests of uniformity.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. Remaining amendments in Clause 19, omission of Clause 20, new Clause 20, amendments in Clauses 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 (Dutch), 28 to 34, 36, 37, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54 and the omission of subsection (1) of Clause 57 put and agreed to.

On the new sub-section (1) of Clause 57,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New sub-section (1), as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 57 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 58, 59 (Dutch), 60, 62, 63 and 66 (Dutch) put and agreed to.

On Clause 67,

What is the meaning of “natural”?

If the word is merely left as “person” then it may also be a juridical person.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 69, 70 (Dutch), 71 72 and omission of Clause 73 put and agreed to.

On new Clause 73,

I move—

seconded.

You agreed to it yesterday.

No, I did not agree to it, it was put in under a misapprehension.

It was passed.

It was passed, but not with my knowledge. I opposed it. I never intended to consent to it.

I hope the Minister will not harden his heart in this way, because, after all, section 73 is intended to preserve existing rights against the very drastic inroads made upon them in another portion of that clause. As the clause read without the word “to”, it referred only to actually existing claims. The word “to” was put in there to make it clear that what was preserved was not only the right to actually existing claims, but the right to get claims and make them come into existence. There are two classes of cases where people are perfectly entitled to take out their claims. They have complied with all the stages of the law and they are as much deserving of protection as the people who have been able to take out their claim It seems to me the Minister is unjustly depriving the people of this right The Minister has given no reason whatever why he draws this distinction between two classes which are equally deserving of protection.

I do hope the Minister will accede to this. We moved this into the Bill yesterday. The Minister says he does not know about it. It is a very important point and by refusing to retain the word to he may be excluding far-reaching rights quite illogically and quite inconsistently. I hope the Minister will see the justice of retaining the word “to” and will agree.

It is no good relying on what was passed yesterday. It was never intended to be passed and I am quite clear that I said no. I think there was a misapprehension—not on my part I was previously approached about it. I know exactly where it comes from. Naturally hon. members are perfectly entitled to represent the views of individuals, but I made it plain that I could not accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New Clause 73, as amended, put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 74 put and agreed to.

On new Clause 74,

I move—

seconded.

I should like to insert an amendment instead of that proposed by the Minister. Now the Minister can act—

State what you wish before you argue it. Perhaps I may meet you.

If it is accepted then there is no difficulty.

I am willing to accept the amendment.

It looks as if that is what the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) wants. Perhaps it will be better if the hon. member moves it because the Minister has already moved an amendment.

I move—

seconded.

I am willing to adopt these words—

I amend my amendment accordingly.

I agree to that and I withdraw my amendment.

What does that mean? Does it mean that the prior laws are kept alive for the purpose of determining discoverers’ rights?

In my opinion he would in any case be entitled under the common law which says that unless a new Act of Parliament subsequently destroys that right the right is presumed to continue. Under the existing law of the Cape, for instance, in the case of discovery the discoverer gets 17 claims. In the absence of a specific clause in this Bill destroying that light from the date of the operation of this Act, he would still get his 17 claims if the discovery was prior to the operation of this with leave of the House, amendment proposed by the Minister of Mines withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Mostert put and agreed to.

New Clause 74, as amended, put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 75 put and agreed to.

On new Clause 75,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 76, 77, 78, 82 (Dutch), 84, 87 and amendments in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 88 put and agreed to.

I move that the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section (3)—

seconded.

I do not quite follow why the Minister introduces this amendment. Under section 74 the Minister can lease ground to companies and generally make exceptions. Now a licensed diamond buyer is debarred from getting a digger’s certificate, and is debarred from competing for ground. I do not think that is the right thing to do. It is the natural position if a man is dealing in diamonds that he should take an interest in the claim.

The simple explanation is this: it is obviously most undesirable that a person who is on the diggings as a diamond buyer should have any interest in a claim. Is it desirable to see a digger in the hands of a diamond buyer who can offer him any price he likes for his produce? If you go to the diggings you see 20 to 30 flags flying “Diamond buyers”: they have increased considerably now. Should these people be interested except as diamond buyers of alluvial stones? Should diggers be exposed to being in their clutches? The whole principle is unsound.

The Minister misunderstands me. I refer to section 74.

I am not anxious under section 74 to encourage diamond dealers to become lessees. I do not think it would be sound at all. If there is a corporate body there is nothing to prevent it becoming a lessee.

Why must they be forced to form a company?

We know companies are usually formed.

I trust the Minister has satisfied himself that the diamond cutter is going to be placed at no disadvantage as regards his position in contrast with the buyer and broker and factor, and that he will have the fullest liberty as a Buyer for cutting purposes. It will be unfortunate if he has not.

There is nothing in the clause or the Bill that affects the cutter.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New sub-section (4) of Clause 88, proposed by committee of the whole House and amendments in Clauses 89, 91 to 94 98 103 104 (Dutch, omission of Clause, new Clause 107, amendments in Clauses 108 (Dutch), 112 (Dutch) and omission of Clause 114, put and agreed to.

New Clause 114,

I move—

1. 114 (1) The Governor-General may on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission from time to time frame regulations specifying the officers and employees or classes of officers and employees of the Public Service as defined in Section 1 of the Public Service and Pensions Act, 1923, and of such other Government or semi-Government bodies or institutions as the Public Service Commission may recommend who owing to the nature or place of their duties employment, shall not, or whose wives shall not, directly or indirectly bold a claim or any share therein on any alluvial digging or any interest or share in a mine or directly or indirectly take part in or have any interest in any lottery for the issue of such claims or hire or be interested directly or indirectly in the working of any claim or hold any share in any company or association of two or more persons having any such interest.
2. (2) Any person acting in contravention of any regulation framed under sub-section (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds in addition to any penalty or disciplinary action to which such person may be liable under any Act or regulation governing the conditions of his employment. Such person if in the public service shall be guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Section 20 of the Public Service and Pensions Act, No. 27 of 1923.

I have re-drawn this Clause, which I hope will now satisfy hon. members in general. The interested in these undertakings. I will give a concrete instance. Persons in my department may be sent from the diggings, or to the diggings, and the information may be very valuable to a dishonest clerk. So we leave it to the Public Service Commission, in conjunction with the Advisory Council, to recommend to the Governor-General the issue of regulations dealing with the matter, and if those regulations are issued they will have the force of law and the penalty will apply. I think that is a very equitable arrangement. A prominent public servant who came to me with a deputation on this matter a considerable time ago, told me this morning that he was perfectly satisfied with this provision, so I hope it will now pass without any difficulty. I certainly feel that some provision of this nature should be made.

seconded.

Will railway servants be treated in the same way as members of the public service?

Yes, absolutely; the Public Service Commission cannot pick and choose. If the commission picks out any of the administrative bodies, steps will be taken to see that an opportunity is given for these people to express their views before the regulations are issued.

Does the Public Service Commission control the railway servants in any shape or form?

No, I don’t think so.

The Minister’s proposal is an improvement, but I still maintain that it was not necessary and that the existing conditions of the Public Service Act are quite adequate to meet any difficulties which may arise. However, the Minister’s latest proposal can no longer be considered a stigma on public servants. The Minister, however, still makes special legislation with regard to public officials He has instanced the case of postal officials. These officials transmit telegrams every day containing stock exchange and racing news, and they can be trusted to do their duty.

New clause put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 115, 116, amendments in the Second Schedule and the omission of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedules, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted, and read a third time.

May I say a few words about the notice of motion standing in my name with regard to the Imperial Conference of November last? The leader of the Opposition saw me this morning, and in view of the lateness of the session and the desire of us all to have a complete and full discussion on the subject, we have decided to allow the motion to stand over, and I hope the House will be satisfied with that decision.

A serious mistake crept in in committee. It was never my intention to delete Clause 13, because that would mean that the 1919 Act which prohibits companies composed of Asiatics owning the ground could not be applied in the northern districts of Natal. I proposed to incorporate a new Clause 13 after Clause 12, but not to delete Clause 13. I move accordingly.

New Clause 13 put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 13 put and negatived.

Amendments in Clause 16 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I want to bring forward a Bill with regard to the export of base minerals It deals with the grading of these minerals.

Orders of the Day Nos. I and VI to X to stand over until Order No. XI has been disposed of.

Eleventh Order read: Second reading, Restricted Minerals Export Bill.

I move—

I hope members will see the necessity for this little Bill. We have had repeated complaints from trade commissioners and especially from Mr. Louw in New York saying that corundum and mica are not graded in the proper manner in South Africa, in fact they are not graded at all, and it is doing the industry a tremendous amount of harm. The object of the Bill is to ensure proper grading. There is a great future for our base minerals, and if this measure passes, that future will be further enhanced.

I would like to know whether the Minister has been approached by the people who produce these minerals which are to be graded, because it is a question, which I know from experience, has caused a certain amount of difficulty. Rhodesia I suppose, is a bigger producer of base metals than the Union, but they have not got any law of that kind there. So far as most of these base minerals which are exported in large quantities are concerned, the people who are concerned with the production of them do a vast deal themselves and they take care about the grading, etc. Take the question of mica I know that is an extremely difficult matter, because in most places mica is not produced from large mines, but by a number of small producers and it is extremely difficult to get this mica graded on the spot. I am not saying it is a bad thing to have this grading system, but I would like to know whether the Minister is doing this at the request of the people who are principally concerned with the production and sale of these products, or whether it is purely a Government measure, brought in at the instigation of the Trade Commissioner in America, because it may be that it will not have the desired effect. I am not saying that it will do harm, but I say that it wants consideration because of the circumstances under which the industry is carried on in this country.

The position is this. These people have approached the Government repeatedly to give them a subsidy and help them financially, and the whole cause of their embarrassment has been this want of proper grading. We did help them to a certain extent.

Is that mica?

No, corundum especially. We helped them to a certain extent, but we did not see our way to doing anything further unless we could ensure the foreign market and the foreign market has collapsed because of the unsatisfactory state in which the corundum, especially is exported. The only chance for these people this grading. I cannot say that they have specifically approached me to introduce the Bill, but they have constantly approached me.

The corundum people have asked for Government protection, I know.

Yes.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 5,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, certain amendments were made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill as amended, adopted, and read a third time.

Business suspended at 12.24 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I move—

I wish to say that I still disagree with this Bill and still think it unnecessary to impose this clause upon the Cape native, because, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said last night, after more carefully considering this matter, the power we give the Government under our proclamation system is greater than the power conferred upon the Minister under this clause. In the speech that I made I told the Minister that, as far as our experience in the Transkei is concerned, the proclamation system gives them as much power as they are entitled to. I did not think it was necessary to impose this particular power in connection with the Cape Province and I am sorry that the Minister did not accept ray amendment then. It was turned down by the opposite party. The Minister says that this power is necessary and I understand that the department say that it is necessary, but I disagree with them, and I think that after this system has been administered in this province it will be found that that power is unnecessary and has been unnecessary. To my mind the only effect will be that it will instil a feeling of unrest in the minds of the natives of this province. My amendment is intended to ensure that this power shall only be exercised subject to the same restrictions and the same control as are imposed in connection with the proclamation system. I am sorry that the Minister of Native Affairs has not interested himself in this matter. I think that this is a wrong power, that it is going to react against the whole of the native policy of this Government and that it is going to create a feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction in the minds of the natives, which is absolutely and totally unnecessary. My amendment will, I believe, not only safeguard the native, but it will to a certain extent place a restriction upon the Government. I think that under the conditions there laid down the Minister, before he exercises these powers, will be extremely careful.

seconded.

I have taken the attitude all the time that this power is necessary in the interests of native administration. The argument is that this power is not necessary in the Cape although it is necessary in Natal, and it is admitted that it has acted beneficially in the past in Natal. It has never been abused; it has been used in the interests of the advancement of the natives. I would like to point out how we look upon the native administration of the Cape, so as to stress this point, that it is because of the weakness which is inherent in the administration of the Cape that that weakness is spreading to the north and, to a large extent, paralysing the power which one expects in the administration of native affairs When we talk about the Cape administration, what do we mean? There are three entirely different systems in the Cape. You have, for instance, the system in the Transkei, where the Government has greater powers than ever existed in Natal. On the other hand, in the Ciskei, you have no power whatever. There is no native law; the administration of native affairs is very haphazard, and native administration, because of the lack of powers is, more or less useless. In Bechuanaland there is an entirely different system of native affairs where the Government in no way interferes with native law, and native matters, and where administration is entirely carried on by the chief So we have three entirely conflicting administrations in the Cape. Obviously if the power of supreme chieftainship has been valuable in the Transkei, then it would be valuable elsewhere. The essence of administration by proclamation is—you shall have a large unit of natives who can be ruled by one proclamation. Where you have different tribes scattered all over the place with different systems, it is necessary to have personal administration. Proclamation is applicable to large native territories, like the Transkei, where it can be spread over a large area of country, but in South Africa where we have different degrees of advancement amongst the natives, there is the necessity for personal rule where the system of proclamation cannot be applied in its entirety, and that is why we consider the power of supreme chief should remain with the Government. The system of proclamation in the Transkei is infinitely more drastic than is proposed in this Bill, because you can issue a proclamation which becomes law immediately, but in this Bill it is provided that a proclamation must be published in the “Gazette” a month before it becomes operative, and also there must be attached to the proclamation a report by the Native Affairs Commission, setting forth their opinions. The whole essence of government by proclamation is that it shall apply to the whole area. It is very undesirable to issue proclamations to deal with a very small section of people, therefore, I hope the Minister will adhere to the original clause.

As far as the amendment is concerned moved by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) to carry out my character of always being reasonable, I accept that amendment. I think, to a certain extent, it would be a safeguard against too casual or too hasty a use of the powers in Section 1.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in old Clauses 1, 4, 5, 6, and in lines 53 to 55 and 1 to 11, on page 8, of Clause 7 put and agreed to.

On amendment in lines 17 and 18 of Clause 7

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new Clause 9,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New Clause 9, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Clause 8 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

May I ask the Minister, with respect to Section 10, whether he would consider the question of conferring upon the native commissioner the power to try divorces in cases of native marriage contracted according to civil or Christian rites’ In isolated districts, e.g., in Zululand, it would be a very expensive business for these natives, both in respect of law costs and in the way of travelling to have recourse to a superior court. It is a genuine grievance.

It would’ be a very dangerous thing indeed to allow magistrates to grant divorces, whether in the case of natives or of anyone else. If a native wants a divorce, he has not to go to the capital town at all of a province. The hon. member has forgotten that there are such things as circuit courts. A native can also, if necessary, sue in forma pauperis, and he has only to present a petition to the court. You have all the safeguards.

I might tell the hon. member that is one of the points which was considered by the select committee, which came to the conclusion that it would be unwise to tamper with the existing law, and it would be laying down that native marriages, according to Christian rites, have less sanctity than European marriages. We considered there might be a case made for it, but, if so, it should be dealt with in an amendment of the marriage laws, and it would be unwise to put it into this Bill. I agree fully with the opinion of the select committee on this matter.

On sub-clause (3) I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the case where there might be two or more defendants living in different areas.

You cannot provide for all cases.

I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is aware that in the Transkei the chief magistrate for many years has had the power of granting native divorces, and it is a system which has worked very well. It is only in the last two or three years, owing to pressure of work, that the chief magistrate has made representations, and this power was taken away. We practically had a promise from the Prime Minister two years ago that this matter would be dealt with.

I do not think that we can discuss that; it is not a matter contained in the amendment.

Hon. members have had a good go at it.

If every hon. member has a “good go” at it, where are we going to end?

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

Could not the desirability be considered of putting words in to the effect that parties might agree as to what particular custom shall apply in the particular matter at issue or in dispute? That would save a good deal of evidence in many cases, and simplify litigation.

They can do that in the court. I do not see how we can make it clearer in legislation than that, so I do not think it is necessary. It would be extraordinarily difficult to phrase, I should imagine.

Amendments put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

With regard to sub-section (1) of 3, it has been represented to me that to confer on chiefs the power of dissolving marriages under native custom and native marriages registered under the native code in Natal would be an innovation of a very far-reaching kind, in so far as Natal is concerned. Hitherto, the magistrate has been the only authority competent to dissolve marriages of that kind, and, as these marriages are very effectively registered in every magistrate’s office, and they often form the basis of litigation for the recovery of lobolo, it would be most confusing to let a native chief’s court, which is not a court of record, have power to dissolve such marriages.

I think the hon. member’s point is mentioned in the proviso. Ordinary civil marriages and marriages registered under the Natal Act are excluded.

Is the reverse not the case?

The language is a little bit involved. No native chief has power to dissolve a marriage which is not a customary union or which does not fall under Law 19. This really reads the opposite way it is intended to read. The intention of the hon. member and of the select committee is exactly the same.

Will you make it clear that the chief has no power over these marriages?

Yes. We can amend it in another place if necessary, but the intention is what the hon. member has contended for.

Amendments in Clause 10 and in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 11 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 11 and amendments in Clauses 12, 13 and 14, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

seconded.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

So far as I can make out, it makes no difference which of the two amendments is accepted. It the hon. members for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) can settle their difference amongst themselves, then I shall be prepared to accept either of the amendments.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

Has the Minister thought about this question of the jurisdiction of the high court of Natal? Perhaps the Minister will consider an amendment to this in another place to meet our objections.

As far as the department and myself are concerned, we are averse to any alteration in this clause. There are a lot of practical difficulties which it is not advisable to discuss fully in this House, and I think it better it should go through in this form.

Before we abolish the native high courts will the Minister agree to receive representations on the subject?

Naturally.

There is as great objection on the part of Europeans as the natives.

There is no intention to abolish. That has never been discussed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 16 and 17 put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

Would the Minister consider making some clear distinction between common law and native law offences? Under this section a native chief, without proper guidance, may manufacture offences which really do not exist even under native law, and we may find difficulty in distinguishing between common law and native law. I hope the Minister will consider some administrative action to deal with this question. I hope the possibility of the creation of new offences will be avoided by a clear schedule.

It is clearly pointed out that we should only deal with offences under native laws and customs, and as they are varied over the whole Union, it will be impossible to draw up a schedule of all the possible native offences under native law and customs throughout the Union. It is really a question of fact as to what is an offence under native law and customs and the Minister of Justice cannot regulate that. In any case, there is protection by appeal to the magistrate.

There can also be a review by the Supreme Court The native administrators can also watch the chiefs and see they do not do what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) suggests.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New Clause 21, and amendment in Clause 19, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

Has the Minister considered the appointment of a board to consider the Natal code of native law? We discussed this matter in the committee stage, and I thought the Minister was going to bring up an amendment to satisfy us.

It is an awkward matter to deal with by amendment. We might deal with it by publishing amendments proposed in good time before the changes are made, so that representations can be made. I conferred with the department, and in every case the matter will be carefully considered by the native commissioners. I think there will be sufficient safeguard. I will be prepared to accept a motion that any changes should be notified for a considerable length of time in the Gazette before the changes are made.

Will the Minister consider the suggestion we made to have any alteration preceded by an inquiry by a board of officials of the department? If the Minister would agree to a simple amendment which would say that no alteration shall take place unless preceded by an enquiry by a commission or board of officials appointed by the Minister, I think that would meet the case.

I understand that practically the same steps are taken by the department where proclamations are altered. I do not think it is necessary to put it in the Act. It seems to me that it would be sufficient if it is provided that no change shall be made until it has been published for information for a certain length of time. I will bring that up in another place.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 24 and in lines 33, 34 and 39 of Clause 25 put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I move—

The reason why I move this is a practical reason, and it is that in the Industrial Conciliation Act, No. 11 of 1924, the definition of “employee” excludes a person whose contract of service or labour is regulated by any native pass law and regulations. If we do not take out these words in Clause 25, the effect will be that these natives will be brought under the Industrial Conciliation Act. I do not believe that this committee wish to bring natives under that Act who are not under it at the present time, unless that Act is amended, and there is a full discussion on the question. I think it will be much better where we are increasing the classes who are brought under the provisions of that Act, that it should be done by a direct amendment of the principal Act.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Omission of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 26 and new sub-section (1), put and agreed to.

On new sub-section (2) of Clause 26,

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

As the paragraph stands at present, any magistrate can have premises searched and take from those premises anything which may be regarded as calculated to cause hostility between natives and Europeans, and can order it to be destroyed. If the three words “final and not” are deleted from the clause it would be open to any person to go to the Appeal Court. No appeal is allowed, as the paragraph stands. I want the courts of this land to be open to everybody, whether they be black, white, yellow or green the courts of the land right at the very top to be open to all. The premises of any man might be searched, a man’s house might be searched, and a sporting rifle might be found there or a heirloom. The magistrate, by writing, under this clause may authorize such articles to be destroyed. Now I want a man whose property has been seized in that way, to have the right to appeal so that the judges may decide whether this particular thing which has been discovered on his premises, should be destroyed or not. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It in no way interferes with the principle or framework of his Bill. It simply means that, instead of the magistrate’s decision being final, you will have the right of appeal to the higher courts.

I second the amendment. I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment. I trust that he will at last accept something from this little corner, towards which he has been obdurate. Take a case of books. You may have books dealing with the formation of trade unions. One particular magistrate may take one view, and another magistrate may take quite a different view in regard to such literature. I know of a case some time ago, which illustrates the divergent views which might be taken as to whether a novel was obscene. The magistrate considered that it was obscene. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the judges decided otherwise. The conviction was quashed. Power is given to the magistrate to authorize the destruction of evidence, and he may destroy evidence before the case comes on appeal, because, under this clause, you say that he may authorize the destruction of anything. If the hon. member’s amendment is carried, it will not give any power of review or appeal against the warrant for the seizure of these things. What it is sought to bring under appeal or review is the order that these things are to be destroyed. I think there should be a review on the ground of irregularity in the proceedings, and an appeal should take place if desired as to whether a magistrate’s opinion that these things are calculated to cause hostility is correct or not. That opinion may be held by a higher court to be entirely wrong. Then you will have some uniformity.

If we allowed appeal and review, you would probably find that that is going to cost much more than the cost of the article destroyed. The article destroyed may be worth 10s., while the cost of proceedings on appeal or review may be £15. Where these administrative acts are concerned, I think it is much better that we should have finality. I have no objection to a section which says that the matter shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court. I certainly would not go further than that. I think we shall probably find that in hardly any case would advantage be taken of a right of this kind. I do not think this provision is going to assist anybody, but I am prepared to meet the hon. member, especially after the moving appeals made on behalf of the corner, but subject to the deletion of the words “final and not” and “appeal or”, so that the concluding words of the clause will read “shall be subject to review.” I am not moving that, but I am prepared to accept an amendment on those lines.

I will accept that amendment, though I would have preferred that the Minister had agreed to the amendment which I originally proposed.

Amendment to omit “final and not and “appeal or” put and agreed to.

New sub-section (2), as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 26 and amendment in Clause 27 put and agreed to.

I move—

A case I would like to put to the Minister is that under Act 27 of 1913, certain townships which were specially set apart for sale to natives and coloured people, are specifically protected, and these townships—there are only a few of them in the Transvaal—have been carrying on, under the specific protection afforded by the Act, a perfectly legitimate business. Take a township where a company have sold off a portion of the erven. All the other erven lying there they have not been able to sell, or do not want to sell. If this unsold land is going to be taxed for light, water, etc., a heavy burden is going to be placed upon the company, and I submit that it would be fair to accept my amendment, whereby only the plot-holders shall be taxed, because, after all they are the only people who are going to get the benefit of these services. I know a case in which people have been unable to get rid of the lots. They cannot get rid of it. My amendment is to tax only the people who buy erven. I would like the Minister to consider that, because I think it is fair.

The department is strongly against that.

I am sorry to hear that, but leaving the department aside, is it fair to tax vacant ground which has nothing to do with the township? It might be inadvisable or unnecessary for them to sell anymore. A case has arisen where they could find no purchaser for it, yet the Minister proposes to tax this vacant land outside the township in order to provide the people within the township with light and water and other services. It seems to me an infringement of a very important principle. This company has no say over the money that is squeezed out of them. It is an elementary principle that if a man is taxed he is, at any rate, going to get the benefit of it himself. The very least tax they would have to pay is about £1,200. It will all go to these natives. It is a perfectly fair case, and I sincerely hope the Minister will accept my amendment. Otherwise, I feel I would have to move it again at the third reading, because this is a very far-reaching innovation.

seconded.

The trouble is that that is only one side of the picture. If a quarter of the surface of the township has been sold to natives it is not quite correct to say that the rates and taxes would only benefit the quarter that is being sold, because purchasers will be encouraged for the remaining township and will cause the value to increase. Take Rissik or Brooklyn, or any of these townships. The whole of the area is rateable for the benefit of the towns. The position with regard to the township my hon. friend mentions is that it is at present administered by a health committee. There is no intention to-day to call upon them for any rates but in case the health committee breaks down, and the Native Affairs Department have to do something more to prevent trouble occurring because of bad sanitation or something of that kind which might spread into Johannesburg proper, on that account the Department feels it is their duty to make provision for these rates and taxes. That power should not be confined to the actual land already sold, but also the other sold land. There is a percentage basis laid down, and it will not be more than 3d. in the £. That is the maximum. In case it becomes necessary by the present position breaking down, the department feels provision should be made in this Bill to meet any future emergency which may arise. The ordinary way in which rates are levied to-day is upon the owner, all over the country. If the department in this case decides simply to hit the owner, then it will be all the owners, even the owner who has bought land. Every owner is rated to-day. Why should the owner, simply because he is a speculative company, selling land to natives, not to be rated? It is very difficult to imagine why they should not be taxed in the same way. There has been no intention to make any discrimination between the native owner and the European owner. I should imagine the better course would be if the position should arise, to rate the owner and not the resident, but the department takes the power to choose one or the other.

I raised this question about a similar township in select committee. These townships are administered by the health committee, and I was assured that though they were de facto administering, they were not doing so legally.

I found out that was a wrong view.

Yes, I have now found that these committees are legally in existence. Under this clause which you have at present, the Governor-General may make regulations which will interfere with the power of these committees legally carrying on their functions as they do at present. The Minister, I think, ought to consider the position of townships which have health committees or similar local authorities functioning according to law. He talks about wanting to exercise his power only when the health committees break down. But that is not required in the Act. If they break down, the operation of the section would apply, but what you want to see is that these townships will not come under this section as long as you have health committees legally carrying on their work. I am assured that these committees have been carrying out local government work at very small expense to the natives. The Minister says the owners have no right to complain because the principle is the taxation of owners throughout the country. That is right, but owners are only taxed where they have a voice in the taxation, where they have power to register themselves as voters, and can put the people into the local administration who will levy the taxes. Of course, the principle is right that owners should pay. They are made to pay under the condition that they have a voice in the taxation, but here owners are being made to pay by regulations in the composition of which they have no voice whatever, and over which they have no control or say, and no power of retribution. In other words, they cannot vote out of office people who have imposed taxes which are too high. You should exempt from the operation of this power to make regulations all those areas where you have local authorities of that kind. I wonder if the Minister would consider framing a clause like that, for the purpose of exempting people where there is a health committee legally in existence.

I would like to ask the Minister if this clause covers such townships as will not be populated by more than two-thirds natives. Take the location which has grown up at a place like Kliptown. The balance of natives may be such as to give them the voting power in that particular township, and on occasions where they have tried to form a health board the natives have turned it down. They do not want a health board. They do not want any health regulations. The whole place is a hiding place for thieves. It is a very important thing for the people in that district. Does the Minister consider that under this clause he has the power to deal with a place like the Race Course township where it is very necessary to bring about order and decency? Is it possible under any of our laws, to get these natives into the larger locations and abolish this particular location altogether?

As far as Kliptown is concerned the whole question is whether two-thirds of the inhabitants are natives or not; if less than two-thirds are natives it would not fall within the purview of this section; if more than two-thirds are natives it is the intention of the Government to appoint a board in the interests of public health: but, of course, where one of these areas does not fall within the terms of this section the line must be drawn somewhere.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 29, 31, 32, 34 and the Schedule, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move, as an unopposed motion, on behalf of the Prime Minister—

seconded.

Order read dated 16th June:

Motion put and agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On contingent notice of motion—

If the Minister will give me an assurance that he will go into this matter with the South African Health Officials Association during the recess, I will be prepared not to proceed with this motion. I introduced a Bill, and withdrew it because I thought that the Public Health Bill would deal with it.

I have spoken to the hon. gentleman before hand, and I am quite willing to go into this matter during the recess, and see what we can do. That matter can stand over for next session. There is only really one contentious part, and that is the part containing the clauses dealing with vaccination. I think it is a very urgent case, and the Act as it is to-day has not been brought into operation for the last three or four years; gradually a very dangerous position is being created in the country. Not more than 13 per cent. of the European children are—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. the Minister, but there is nothing before the House. Does the Minister move that I leave the Chair?

I make a strong protest against this procedure.

The whole of this discussion is out of order.

I protest against going on further with this Bill.

The hon. member can move to report progress in committee.

The hon. member is so pleased with the situation that he protests against your leaving the Chair, sir.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

On Clause, 1,

What does the Minister expect? Here we are sitting at 3.45 on Saturday afternoon—

We are just taking Clauses 1 and 2.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Public-Health it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.