I move, as an unopposed motion—

ary, 1929, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

seconded.

When are we to have the report of the Land Bank?

I have made enquiries about the report and I am informed it is in the hands of the printers and will be ready by the 20th March. The capital of the bank has been considerably increased, of late years. It stands at well over £10,000,000. We cut, considerably, this year the normal amount annually advanced to the bank and it appears the reduction was too drastic and that is why we have to vote an additional amount now. If we do not provide the bank with reasonable amounts, it will simply mean that they will have to stop making advances to the class of applicants contemplated in our legislation. I do not think that is a policy which the country would like to see adopted. The bank only advances amounts up to £2,000 on a holding. Very great pressure has been brought to bear on the Government from time to time to increase the amount and also to raise the margin which is generally allowed in respect of advances. Up till now I have always resisted that request because it would have meant that we would have to provide much larger amounts than we are doing now. The policy laid down and adopted has been that people wanting accommodation for larger amounts must go to the ordinary financial institutions. The concern of the bank is primarily to assist the man of moderate means to get an advance on his property. Since the Act was passed land values have gone up and people point out that where formerly an amount of £2,000 was fairly reasonable for a man to acquire a property, to-day values have gone up to such an extent that £2,000 does not go very far and we have been urged to increase the limits, but we have not done so. If we do so Parliament and the country will have, to be prepared to find a much larger amount for the bank. Of course, we have lately also encouraged the granting of loans by the bank to farmers for fencing purposes, especially jackal fencing. Very large amounts have been expended for that purpose and I think it is a very useful purpose. Farming has improved to a wonderful extent, especially sheep farming, and I do not think that is an expenditure which the House wants me to curtail. Although the bank is doing its best to carry out the objects which the Government set them out of their own resources, it will still be necessary for some time to come for us to treat applications on their merits and provide such sums as we think are necessary in the circumstances for the objects in view.

I hope the Minister will deal as liberally as possible with this institution, which has performed wonderful work. When it was introduced in the Parliament of the Transvaal the opposition members said it would ruin the farmer; he would be encouraged to borrow from the State without any proper recognition of his liability, and that cheapening money to the farmer was the most fatal thing one could do. They also said: “Leave loans and advances to private individuals; let the interest be high so as to discourage the farmer from borrowing.” The bank has worked in exactly the opposite way. It has been the stand-by of the farmers. It has checked individual money-lenders from charging excessive rates; and the bank has shown farmers the way to develop along the best possible lines. Its small losses have been well covered by the small margin of profit. I hope the Minister will study the whole principle underlying this successful enterprise, because we, of the Labour party, want for commercial people, and for the people, smaller traders and industrialists just the same facilities as are given to farmers. It is using the credit of the people for the people. Whether this bank wants £100,000 or £1,000,000 more, find it, because it is putting the farmers in the independent position in which we would like them to be. I hope it will be clear to hon. members, especially to those of conservative views, believing as they do that everything financial should be left to individual enterprise, that here we have an outstanding example of what we on these benches have so often advocated in reference to State banking, and it has proved an unqualified success.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has commented on the further £100.000 which is made available for the Land and Agricultural Bank. I do not believe that many members appreciate what great services are done by the Agricultural Bank, especially with regard to loans for jackal-proof fencing. I have not the least doubt that the loss of stock has been reduced by at least 50 per cent., moreover, the investments of the Land Bank are just as safe as those of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), not only those for jackal-proof fencing, but for other things. The Minister of Finance has already said that the advances are far from being adequate. The prices of ground have so risen in recent years, at least ground suitable for farming, that the maximum amount of £15,000 is no longer enough. I am glad that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) agrees with me, that, even if it costs £1,000,000, no one ought to object to it because we are thereby giving the farmer an opportunity to remain on the land. I have already said on a previous occasion that if the farmer once leaves the land and lives in the town he will not readily return to the farm. We must, as the hon. member said, “stem the tide.” The farmers must be encouraged to remain on the farms and they ought to be assisted because they are often heroes who are carrying on courageously. The loans for jackal-proof fencing are especially of great importance to the stock farmer. My hon. friends from the north-western districts will admit that the loss of stock has become much less. I hope the Minister will give his earnest attention to the matter so that the amounts of the advances will be greater. They can be made without danger because the manager of the Land Bank and his assistants are very careful in the granting of loans, in my opinion even too careful. The hon. member for Capo Town (Central) shakes his head, but if we compare the loss of the Land Bank with the benefits it gives to the farmers in the country the hon. member will admit that I am right. The Treasury does not lose a single penny. Why then did the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) object to it? If he had any idea of conditions in the interior he would not have the least objection to larger loans. But they live in “marble halls” in the Cape, and do not know what is happening in the country. It is the greatest gamble in the country for the farmer in the interior, and, even if we were to lose much money in consequence, the farmer ought to be encouraged by us by making larger amounts available for loans to the farmer who wants to buy a farm and mortgage it, or who wants to buy jackal wire. It is impossible to assist the farmers properly with the small amount which is now made available.

I would like the Minister to give us some information about loans for irrigation.

A circular was issued some time ago as a result of the action this House took in cutting out certain land. The bank considered the question and have since modified this.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote H, “Forestry,” £75,100.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to devote any of this money to the establishment of further sleeper factories. Nominally these factories show a profit.

What has this to do with the Vote?

Forestry.

What particular item?

The purchase of land.

The hon. member must confine himself to the increases.

Is any of this money to be devoted to the establishment of further sleeper factories?

The hon. member may ask that question.

It would be of interest to this committee to know where this land has been purchased. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the need of asking the department as far as possible to try to purchase land where the trees thrive.

The hon. member cannot enter into the general question of forestry.

I do not think anyone is opposed to the purchase of land for afforestation, because a great national asset is being built up. Our forestry department is one of our silent departments, which is doing good work for the country, but the public are not aware of the volume of work being done, but, nevertheless the Minister should give us a list of the actual ground he proposes purchasing.

Perhaps the Minister will explain to us what this is.

Afforestation is one of the most effective methods of providing useful employment for a large number of people who otherwise would be unemployed. In other parts of the world it has been found most effective in this regard, and I believe it can be developed in the same direction here. I would like to know how many labourers are likely to be employed, and also what are the conditions of such employment. The mere placing of people in employment is of very little value unless you give them a rate of pay which will enable them to live as human beings. I hope that in the light of the experience we have had in connection with Doornkop, that this scheme of afforestation will be more satisfactory.

May I just say that this £8,000 is required for forest settlement for which there was not sufficient money available under last year’s Estimates. An hon. member has asked how many people there are. About 800, but it is intended this year to increase them to 1,000. The people living on the settlement get a wage of 6/4 a day, but the people on piece work earn 10/- and more a day. In purchasing ground we specially favour a coastal region and parts with a good rainfall. The land for which money is now being asked in this case, however, lies for the most part in the district of Pilgrim’s Rest where the farms Ceylon, Tweefontein and Waterval, altogether measuring 11,700 morgen, were bought for about £22,000. Further the money is intended for settlement at Laingsnek, where the rainfall is good, and where 1,018 morgen are available. Then there are still a number of other pieces of ground along the coast, but the foregoing are the most important for which approval is now asked.

According to the Minister’s statement, I do not think that he has bought any ground on the coastal belt. On previous occasions I have drawn attention to the importance of buying land where, at the same time, we can train these settlers in agriculture while they are engaged in forestry. I have suggested the importance of the forest at Elgin in this regard. This is one of the most successful afforestation schemes in the country. If there is any forest which will redound to the credit of South Africa, it is this one. You find capitalists coming along and buying up all the land, and eventually the Government will have no land available for afforestation and for the settlement of people who could be trained in agriculture. At Elgin there is a rainfall up to 40 inches per annum, and no expensive irrigation works are necessary. The Government has 12,000 acres of forest there, and the land was originally purchased for a mere song. I would like to know from the Minister of Labour what has become of the Elgin settlement on the mountain.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot deal with that.

I am speaking on Vote H. We ought to be informed what part of this £8,000 is required.

It is a new service really, and is not provided for under the normal forestry settlement vote. It is put in in this manner to satisfy the auditor.

What has become of the new settlement area, and how many settlers are left there?

Last year the original estimate under this heading was £86,000. I should like to ask the Minister how the £66,000 has been expended, seeing that there is an additional £20,000. I should also like to know what principle is adopted in connection with the purchasing of land, and what steps are taken to arrive at a fair value.

May I just tell the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that, in purchasing ground, the value of ground in the district is looked at, and the Land Board in most cases is asked to enquire if too much is not being paid. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that the land I mentioned is not on the coast. That is true in the case of the large pieces of ground under this item, but there are various small pieces which were bought at Mossel Bay, Knysna, Berg River, Tzitzikama, Kingwilliamstown, etc. The hon. member asks why we do not buy more ground. We do not want to pay more than is fair, and therefore we are very careful and only buy when the opportunity occurs, so that the taxpayer does not pay too much.

I should like to discuss this item with the Minister from a purely economical point of view. You are cutting down these yellowwood trees—

The hon. member appears to be discussing policy.

I am dealing with the item of forestry labour. What is going on is wrong. You are cutting down these yellowwood trees which have taken from 200 to 300 years to grow, and the price of yellowwood has gone up so that these sleepers are costing the department three times as much as if they were imported.

The hon. member is out of order.

I just want to point out that the houses on the settlements are in a parlous state.

The money is not for building houses.

But they are houses on the settlement.

I may say that the money is for an entirely new settlement. The hon. member cannot discuss the building of houses here.

Will the Minister of Labour answer my question? How many settlers are there at Nuweberg?

The settlers have been removed to other places.

Can the Minister of Labour tell us whether the site of one of these labour settlements

This question must be put to the Minister of Lands when the opportunity arrives.

May I ask the Minister under 5, which is a new vote, I take it, whether he has taken into consideration the planting of ground in the north-western portion of the Free State. I know the Minister is sympathetic, and I want him to take into consideration whether he cannot spend some of the money in Hooptsad?

I am sympathetic to this vote. My only regret is that the vote is not three times as large. This is one of the best avenues for the employment of poor whites. I would like to ask the Minister whether this is not the psychological time for the Government to purchase forest land on a large scale. Companies are coming in from oversea who are buying up our best land, and utilizing it for commercial purposes. If we purchase land, we can kill three birds with the one stone, not only providing timber for the future, but employing labour which should be employed in this way, and at the same time acquiring this great asset. I would also like to know whether it is a fact that large indigenous trees are being cut down and utilized for sleepers at a cost far in excess of imported timber. This indigenous timber is used by cabinet makers, and a scarcity is being created. It is a mistake to use such valuable timber for railway sleepers.

I have already told the House that we intend increasing the number of labourers on afforestation to 1,000, and I do not know why the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), says that we must take further steps. He apparently wants us to follow a wild policy of land purchase because overseas companies are buying some of the land, but we must act carefully. The hon. member and other hon. members also mentioned the cutting down of yellowwood trees. The department is very careful, and only certain trees which are commencing to decompose are given to the people to cut down. Hon. members surely do not want us to allow the trees to rot entirely so that they will become useless. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) expressed the hope that I would not erect such bad houses as on the settlement near Elgin, and I can assure him that we are trying to build good houses. In the area where we are now going to put a settlement we cannot do otherwise because malaria sometimes prevails there. Therefore, the hon. member need not be uneasy. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) asked why the money could not be spent, e.g., in districts like Boshof. We must be guided by the recommendations of experts in the growth of trees and they recommend the settlements being placed in parts with a regular rainfall. In certain parts of the Free State trees will grow, but they are not suited for settlements.

Will it be within the scope of the operations of the timber investigation to enquire into the value of wood for industrial purposes?

The Department of Forests and the Railway Administration formerly ran such a station jointly, but it appeared later that it was better for the Forests Department to have its own station. This station was then established in Pretoria. The funds are, however, not adequate for the purpose, and therefore an additional £1,100 is asked for. Here wood is classified and experiments are made to dry wood properly. The work is a great success and it has already been found, inter alia, that certain kinds of wood which were formerly not used for furniture can actually be used for that purpose.

How long will the wood last?

It is hard to say whether the wood will be everlastings but the department believes that it will completely answer its purpose and will stand longer than ever it did before.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote J, “Native Affairs,” £500.

Is the district of Herschel included in the areas in which native locations are being fenced? I was told a few days ago that the Fencing Act (No. 17 of 1912) does not apply at all in Herschel, but I would point out that for the last 18 years or more, the department has acted as if the Act were in force in that district. Magistrates have admitted in writing, to myself and others, the Government’s liability under the Act. A levy has been made on the natives of Herschel for ordinary fencing purposes. We would like a definite statement from the Government whether land-owners in Lady Grey and New England are entitled to claim contributions towards the erection of ordinary fencing?

The hon. member is quite correct. The 1912 Act does not apply, but the Government has taken upon itself the same liability as is imposed under Act 17 of 1912 on the adjoining private owners, with the result that the Government has applied the Act just as if it were in operation in the Herschel district. As far as the natives are concerned, we have the remedy of acting under a proclamation and then they pay their share.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote K, “Agriculture,” £1,200.

Is the £1,200 set down for the ostrich feather industry the final payment in this unfortunate business? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the loss to the State is likely to be on the whole undertaking.

Will the Government give particular attention to the ostrich feather industry? I regret very greatly there is not a business man in the Cabinet. If we had had one business man as Minister he would have seen long ago that there is a way of building up this industry satisfactorily. There was a time when we were exporting feathers to the value of three millions annually.

The hon. member is now discussing general policy. He must confine himself to the increase.

I am asking whether this further loan is in the direction of securing advancement in regard to that dwindling industry. I want to point out very earnestly that the Government have missed a great opportunity in regard to extending an export on which so many people depended for prosperity.

The hon. member is now going into a question of policy.

Well, I want to know what the intention is, and in addition to indicate what I think the policy of the Government should be.

Yes, but this is not the place to do it.

When Government asked for £1,200 more for the industry, what is my right as a member if I cannot discuss what they are going to do with this money, what they have done with money we voted before, and so obtain all the information we want in regard to it, and also to point out what they might do with this money? I ask, as a matter of privilege, what I am here for, as a member, if it is not to elicit information from Ministers?

The hon. member wishes to know for what purpose the £1,200 is to be spent. He is entitled to put that question.

I respectfully submit that I am entitled to point out how Government could strengthen the position of the feather industry.

Will the hon. member allow the Minister to reply to the question?

Yes, I will, but I wish to respectfully protest against having my rights and privileges as a member curtailed. [Disorder.] It is an understood thing—[disorder.]

Will the hon. member resume his seat.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) asked a question about the assistance for the ostrich farmers. Let me at once point out that the ostrich farmers were in great need. We then took over the feathers from the co-operative society and borrowed an amount to enable the farmers to gradually adopt some other line. We therefore have the feathers, and the experts say that if we want to preserve them we must sort them and pack them away. This amount is therefore required to have the feathers sorted and put away. So a portion of the feathers is now being sorted and packed. It may be that we shall have to come to the House for a further amount to have the portion which has not yet been sorted sorted and packed away. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) said that if there were a business man in the Cabinet we would have already found a market for the feathers. It seems strange to me, however, that the American, and other business people who have feathers, have not yet succeeded in disposing of them, but the hon. member expects us to sell them. We have not yet had an opportunity of putting the feathers on the market, but when it comes we shall do so. I cannot at present say whether the State will lose on the feathers, but I still hope that the market will rise once more.

This ostrich feather company, I see from the report of the Land Bank, owes the Government £112,000, on which they do not pay any interest. We send an organizing officer there every year. How long are we going on in this way? We are going on piling up the debt. They are not responsible. It is the Government that is responsible to the Land Bank for the money. They are going to come off all right. The Land Bank report says: “There has been no demand for ostrich feathers.” All this seems very strange, and I think we ought to know more about it. We cannot go on indefinitely in this way.

The Government assisted the people with the best intentions, and that the spending of this amount is in the interests of the State itself. The money is intended for sorting the feathers we have. It will of course possibly be necessary to ask for an additional amount, to sort the balance of the feathers, unless in the meantime sales take place, and the money received can be used for sorting the others. We have not yet sold the feathers because we always expect the market to improve sufficiently to reduce the loss to a minimum, or possibly to completely prevent a loss.

This is to be paid for feathers which are stored at Oudtshoorn. How long have they been stored there, and to what extent have they depreciated?

The feathers must be sorted just to prevent their diminishing in value, and steps must be taken to prevent moths eating them up. At present they are still in good condition.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) will agree that the largo quantity of feathers which are now in the warehouses must be preserved from being exposed to damage and that the best way of doing it is by sorting them. The feathers have not yet been sold, because the co-operative society still thinks that they will be disposed of so as to prevent the Government losing much of the money. I myself am still convinced that there is a good chance that the State will lose nothing. The advance was not too high, although, since that time, the market has further weakened. The ostrich farmers are very grateful to the Government, and even now the loss would not be so great on a sale, because the society disposes of a quantity of body feathers for which they paid 5s. 6d. a lb., and for which the prevailing price is now 100 per cent. more. Ten shillings has already been offered for those body feathers or material feathers, but the co-operation is still hoping for a better price. Body feathers are now fashionable for materials.

On a point of order, is not the hon. member making a speech on a point of policy?

It is difficult to draw the dividing line, but I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the vote.

I am only pointing out that the expenditure of this money will even protect the Government. The feathers will be able to be packed away better, and, if circumstances improve, be available for immediate sale. The expenditure of this money will result in the ultimate loss being less than if they were not sorted.

What we really want to know is what the Government is going to do. Is it going to realize and cut its losses?

That is what they are trying to.

Can the Minister tell us when these feathers are going to be realized.

Let me tell the hon. member that the advance was not made as an investment, but was given to accommodate the farmers, who, owing to the slump in the ostrich feather market, and still more on account of the continued drought, were in need. It is, therefore, regrettable that hon. members opposite are so hard on the poor ostrich farmers, who could not make a proper living, and whom the Government wanted to assist, and make such a great fuss about this small amount.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote L, “Iron and Steel Industry”, £175.000.

This is rather a large sum, and we want some information on this. According to the Act of Parliament concerned, the capital is £3.500.000. One shilling per share makes up £175,000. I would like to know what arrangements have been made on the other side. Let the Minister take the committee into his confidence and just tell us where we stand.

I would refer my hon. friend to the chief point of criticism of the Bill, that the board of directors to be established would simply be a tool in the hands of the Government.

Never mind that.

That is very relevant. This corporation has been registered according to the Act, and this Government has no right to interfere with it. Dr. van der Byl has gone to Europe on the resolution of the board of directors in connection with the iron and steel industry, and work referring to the Electricity Supply Commission. I understand one of the objects of his mission is to consider the appointment of technical advisers, and also to consider the question of subordinate industries which may arise from the main works; the Government has not interfered with the board of directors. I assume that Dr. van der Byl and Mr. Delfos, being only two out of the four directors, will do nothing directly and conclusively until they return to the Union after consulting the other directors, and until they have met as a board, whose decisions and resolutions can alone legally bind the corporation. That is the position in a nutshell. They have applied as a board to us for this money, and this money has been consented to as far as the Government is concerned. The money is required for the purposes of the board. The Government has to trust the board, and we have no reason to refuse this amount. If a charge is made, and if the Government deems that the charge should be investigated, other considerations may arise. No such situation has arisen, and we must assume that the board is doing its duty. We must also assume that the board will act within the four corners of the Act.

I understand that from the reply given by the Minister that we are to get no information from the Government. I want to offer another criticism of the Government. Could it not find another man apart from Dr. van der Byl? I do not say a word against that gentleman personally, but to-day he is the head of the Electricity Commission, and most people think that is quite large enough a concern for him to run. I say that it is a grave blunder on the part of the Government to appoint Dr. van der Byl to this position. One man cannot run two big shows like these. Surely it should have been possible to have found another man to run this show. I am not criticizing Dr. van der Byl, but the Government are putting too much upon his shoulders. The Minister knows very well that some people would not even go on the board of directors, and now to put it into the hands of one man is, in my opinion, simply courting disaster.

The Minister has referred to the board, but here the Government has taken upon itself large responsibilities, and I want to know whether the board has kept the Government in touch, and whether the Government has been informed regarding the policy of the board. It would be very remarkable if the board has not kept the Government fully informed. I am not talking about the policy of the Government. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the original vote was £25,000. Now we are asked to vote an additional £155,000, which is based upon the provisions of the Act. I take it that the Minister has been in consultation with the board about the payment of this £175,000, and if that is so, the Government should have received the fullest information. I wish to ask what is the policy of the board in regard to contracts and the appointment of its technical advisers. The Minister is bound to have this information if he has done his duty in accordance with the Act.

As far as the financial arrangements are concerned, as the hon. member has pointed out, in terms of the Act the Government was bound to pay 1s. per share, and that is the amount provided in the main estimates. During the course of the financial year it was represented to the Treasury that certain preliminary requirements would have to be met before the board could have the use of that large sum of money. The board wanted a certain amount for the purpose of purchasing certain properties which were essential to its work, and it was pointed out that it would be in the interests of the company if they could defer going to the public for a considerable time, if the Treasury was prepared to find a relatively small sum of money to carry on operations until the end of the financial year. This £175,000 will carry the board through to the end of the financial year, and the Government is quite prepared to make this payment, which we are now asking the House to sanction.

My point is, before the Government commits itself to this expenditure, did the Government enter into full consultation with the board and receive full information?

The Minister of Mines and Industries has taken up a most extraordinary position—that if a company goes to a person who has money and asks for a big subscription towards its capital, it is not that person’s duty first of all to find out what are the advantages or disadvantages of such an investment. The Minister said the only thing to do was to give the company this money because there were four reliable directors, and it would not be right to ask for information. In private life would any one take up that position? When this Bill was before the House, we were told that there were people offering capital to the Government. I should like to ask the Minister whether, when he was negotiating to give this company this £175,000, he asked them whether anyone else was prepared to back the opinion that the investment was worth having? It would be a source of great satisfaction to the country to know that private individuals were prepared to invest in this undertaking and whether such private individuals have backed their opinion.

I am sorry to see the attitude the Minister is taking up as regards the question of interference with the board. It is true that the board is entitled to carry out certain duties, but the board will not be complete until the public, who subscribe the money, have appointed their representatives. At the present moment the board is not complete, and consists of members appointed by the Government, and is dealing with money subscribed by the Government. Nothing should be done to prejudice the opportunity afterwards of getting public subscriptions for this corporation. I have the greatest admiration for Dr. van der Byl and Dr. Bruwer, but it is not at all certain whether the intention under the Act was not to appoint business men on the board and not civil servants. I would like to know whether the members at present on the board have been permanently appointed, or whether they are there temporarily in order to get the corporation into working order If they are only temporary members, I ask the Minister to seriously consider the question, when the board is finally appointed—

The hon. member cannot discuss the composition of the board.

I take it that this £175,000 will be utilized as to a portion in the payment of the salaries and expenses of the directors of the board.

Provision is made by the Act for the payment of the board.

This House has to pass the money, but I am not going into the question of policy. I hope that the Minister will see, so long as the members of the board are the nominees of the Government, that they will not commit themselves to a particular line, such, for instance, as the appointment of an expert, which may prejudice the public. If I may throw out a suggestion to the Minister, I would suggest that as a preliminary matter, in working out all the details necessary for the establishment of the plant, the Minister and the board would be well advised to appoint a committee of experts, one from England, one from Germany and one from America, to do that preliminary work, rather than appoint a technical man to-day who might be prejudiced in favour of giving the contract to a firm with which he is connected. We had an unfortunate experience under the South African party in connection with the grain elevators, and I hope we shall not have a repetition of it in connection with this corporation.

This £175,000 is asked for the purpose of completing the purchase of 500,000 shares in terms of the Act. Surely the country is entitled to know whether the provisions of the Act have been and are being carried out. When this Act was before the House as a Bill last year, it was understood that there were to be four directors appointed by the Government and three by the subscribers, and surely the intention was that the public he given an opportunity of knowing how the money which the Government is providing is to be expended. I think we are entitled to ask what steps have been taken to go to the public for that £3,000,000. You are going to spend the money which the Government has put up without the consent of the directors who represent those 3,000,000 shares. It is true that under the Act the board representing the Government’s interests may act in the meanwhile, but this is a large sum of £200,000 which the board is to spend. Have you asked the public for that £3,000,000? I think we should not be asked to vote the further £175,000 until we have the fullest possible information. This money belongs to the public. This may be a success, or it may not be. All the common sense of the members is not vested in the Government side. Give a little credit to hon. members of the Opposition, and we are entitled to ask, first of all, when was this company registered, and what steps have been taken to ask the public to subscribe this £3,000,000.

I would like to emphasize that this is a very large sum to hand over for preliminary expenses, although I would be the last to prevent the enterprise going through. Dr. van der Byl has a very high technical reputation, but that does not imply that he is also a good business man, but possibly the reverse. The sum of £175,000 for preliminary expenditure is possibly in excess of what is necessary and, therefore, may lead to waste. We don’t want this money swallowed up in preliminary charges, for which a smaller amount would be adequate. I hope the Government will keep a very close watch on expenditure, more especially seeing that £25,000 has already been spent in purely preliminary work. I do not like the tone of the Minister’s statement that Government has no responsibility, as that remark may encourage extravagance. Overhead charges in the early stages being so relatively high, added to the difficulties of the original company that demonstrated the commercial practicability of the industry, with which I had some direct connection. We do not want this to happen again. I hope the Minister will not be led astray by these highly technical men into a big expenditure, because money is provided with such lavish generosity.

It is perfectly evident that whatever course the Government might follow will be condemned. If we interfere with the board we shall be rebuked; should we refrain from interfering then we shall be rebuked with neglecting our duties. The Government has stated its policy, and I repeat it to-day. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is anxious to know the date of the registration of the company. Well, that took place within the limit prescribed in the Act. The board, for reasons known to itself, has not yet thought fit to approach the public for money, and the Government is not supposed to interfere. As to whether a committee of experts should be appointed, that is pre-eminently a matter for the board. The members of the board are not civil servants, and they are legally, and, in fact, a complete board. Until there are private shareholders, there can be no additional director; when shares are issued to or taken up by the public, additional directors will be appointed, and they will be indicated by the shareholders. The board has not informed the Government either of its policy or its doings.

They ought to have done so.

How does that shape with the criticism of the Opposition when the Bill was before the House? The chief grievance seems to be that I am not in a position to state what contracts are to be given out and who are going to be the technical advisers, but these are matters for the board to determine.

We are asked to vote £175,000. The Minister of Finance treats that as a matter of grave concern, but the Minister of Mines and Industries regards it in a most lighthearted manner. Under Section 8 of the Act the capital, over and above 1s. a share which has to be paid within a given date, has to be advanced in such amounts as may be decided by the Minister of Mines and Industries after consultation with the board. The Minister is under no statutory obligation to pay the money before July 1st, 1930, yet we are asked to-day to advance the board £175,000. The Minister’s only justification for paying the money before due date is that he has satisfied himself, after consultation with the board. We ask what consultation the Minister had with the board and what information he got from the board, which consists of none but Government nominees. The Minister talks very lightly about not interfering, but the Act shows most distinctly that the Government should have a majority on the board. Now, however, the Minister is trying to shield himself behind the technicality that he will not interfere with the directors. What information has the Minister to show that the policy of the board justifies him in advancing this money now? What explanation has the Minister had to satisfy himself that he ought to have that money now, not merely in respect of the immediate objects, but in regard to the general policy of the board? These are matters of great importance, and the House is entitled to demand that the information the Minister has, which has been given to him as a trustee for the State, should be given to us, who are the trustees for the spending of the State’s money.

Surely it was never intended with regard to that £175,000, that that should be paid until something substantial was firstly done? We understood the public money was waiting to be poured into the hands of the corporation, and yet not a penny has been asked from the public. Why?

Because it was not necessary.

The Government is too ready to find all this money, and why? The board of directors has been appointed by the Government, and surely it is intended under the Act that an audit should take place. True, it need not take place until 12 months after the formation of the company, but is not the Government embarking rather light-heartedly on the whole matter? The Minister has not asked for a penny from the people, yet we understood they were waiting to fall on the necks of the Government and say: “For goodness sake, let us have those shares.” If by any means this project is a failure, who is going to lose the money? The public, the unfortunate taxpayer. It is most unsatisfactory.

I should like to ask the Minister if the real reason for having this large sum of money is not because the Government know they are not coming back, and they wish to involve the incoming Government in carrying on this scheme.

We are entitled to insist on: having all the information available. The Minister must have the information somewhere by which he can show exactly what the position is.

I gave that information. They wanted money to take up these options.

It ought to be quite possible for the Minister to show us broadly how the position stands to-day.

I have neither had a report from the directors in Europe as to what they have done, nor have I asked them for a report, nor do I propose doing so. I have no information from the directors. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has misread the Act. What the Act means is this—the Minister concerned cannot force the Treasury to pay any portion of the 500,000 “A” shares until he has consulted the board. That is to say, he must recognize the board in asking for payments on that account.

I will back my reading, but carry on.

Surely that is very clear. The Minister could not, off his own bat, go to the Treasury and say: “You must pay £300,000 or £100,000 or £50,000 on account of the 500,000 ‘A ’ shares,” without the Minister having consulted the board. I Was satisfied that this money had to be paid, and it was explained by my colleague. We had to pay £25,000 for the option for Mrs. Neame of Wakkerstroom; we had to pay £25,000—

Who are “we”?

The board. I say “we” because the Treasury is paying that money. We had to pay £95,000 in connection with the exercising of the option that is held from the Pretoria municipality, and I may tell members when I Use the word “we” I have my eye on the money being provided by the Treasury, and that option was given to me as Minister before the Bill became an Act, because the corporate body did not then exist. That option was ceded by the Minister to the corporation. That makes up a considerable sum. Then the current expenditure is about £8,000 per annum, and then we—the board—have taken up certain options and may take up certain options over coal farms and other farms, so that exhausts practically the whole sum. Now I want to say this—that, as regards the appointment of Dr. van der Byl, I entirely disagree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). It was a matter which had the attention of the Government as to whether it was desirable, seeing he was already chairman of the Electricity Supply Commission. The hon. member will agree the field of choice is very limited for a chairman, and we were satisfied, after full enquiry, and Dr. van der Byl was satisfied, that he would be able to discharge his duties in connection with both concerns. On that ground the appointment was made and I think we can consider ourselves fortunate in having secured the services of such a brilliant and able man as Dr. van der Byl. He is not only brilliant in his own line, but he has proved to be a most excellent Administrator, and it was from both points of view that we considered it was advisable to appoint him. He is a man of considerable personality and weight, he is a man who is almost a genius in his own line, he is a good administrator, and he is a man of considerable business instincts.

We know what the immediate object of this expenditure was. We want information as to the general policy and matters which are distinct from those referred to by the Minister of Finance.

I think I very clearly answered.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote M, “Labour”, £31,750,

I move—

I want to know from the Minister why the Government assumed the responsibility of paying this £1,750. The new agreement which the Minister has entered into makes no provision for this amount, and the committee is entitled to know why the department has taken the responsibility of paying it. Is it that the company is so financially impotent that it is not able to pay this small amount of money? If so, I am sorry for the department’s chances of recovering this £145,000. We are told that the company is in possession of 25,000 bonus shares which are still in hand, or a considerable portion of them, and I want to know why the Minister has taken on himself the responsibility of paying this amount when these shares are available. I want to remind him again of this; we already have a liability of £145,000, the security for which is regarded by very good judges as inadequate. I think the time has arrived when we should stop coddling Mr. Rosenberg. The Minister has assumed responsibility without any registered bond, and the Government has not at present a penny security for this £145,000. The Minister has already had experience of the disastrous effects of drought. He said it had thrown back the development of this estate by something like a year. He must understand that it is within the range of possibility that we may have another drought lasting for one year or two years, in which case the company may fail, in which case the estate will be left on the Government’s hands, and it will be left to nurse the baby. If the Minister has any business instincts, he would agree that his department has gone too far already, and he would not be a party to increasing that liability by another penny. I do ask the Minister to give the committee the reason why he proposes to increase this liability. Is it the case that this company is in such a financial state that it is unable to raise the £1,750 and has to fall upon the Labour Department to liquidate this small debt? As sure as anything, one of these days Mr. Rosenberg will find he is not able to continue this concern, and he will throw it on the department’s hands and the department will have to cut its loss. I protest most strongly against this liability being increased.

I wish to support my colleague, the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), in connection with his motion for the deletion of this item. I take this view of the Minister’s responsibility—that he is more responsible than any individual, except Mr. Rosenberg, for the fact that this agreement between the Trade Facilities Board and the Doornkop Estates was ever entered into. Up to the time when the Minister furnished Mr. Rosenberg with the remarkable contract of March, 1926, the Trade Facilities Board would not look at him, and refused to have any dealings with him whatsoever, and, as a matter of fact, a document produced under a discovery order in the case of Maxwell vs. the Doornkop Estates, showed that Mr. Rosenberg had made fraudulent representations to the Trade Facilities Board, on which he had first approached the board, but his application was rejected on a different ground—on the ground that his representations were not borne out by the report of the head of the School of Agriculture at Cedara. So that up to the time the Minister met Mr. Rosenberg, his protégé, he was unable to get a penny of credit from the Trade Facilities Board. We charge the Minister of Labour with being responsible for the agreement which Mr. Rosenberg was able to obtain from the Trade Facilities Board, and that he would not have secured that agreement but for a document furnished by the Minister. The proof of that is in the fact that the Trade Facilities agreement is based upon the Union Government’s assurances as expressed in a letter from the Minister’s department, which forms the second schedule to the agreement. But the Minister’s responsibility does not end there. We have his latest agreement with the Doornkop Estates, which places an obligation upon the Government to pay 5 per cent, on 94,330 shares of the paid-up value of £1 each, less the 40,000 shares ceded to the Government by the Doornkop Estates. No one but the Minister was responsible for Lord Invernairn going into this. Is no use for the Minister to get up in this House and say that we hurt his feelings. Yesterday, when he was making a personal explanation, he said the matter of his honour should be taken to a select committee.

The hon. member must not go into that now.

I am dealing with the Minister’s responsibility, and it is a very grave one. He has said that he may have made mistakes in connection with Mr. Rosenberg, but that other people also made mistakes, and he quoted Lord Invernairn and the Trade Facilities Board—the very people who were induced to go into these transactions by the Minister himself. Now the Minister has the effrontery to assert that other people were similarly induced to place their confidence in Mr. Rosenberg. They placed their confidence in the Minister, and not in Mr. Rosenberg. That confidence has now been entirely lost. The Minister has not told us when the due date is to arrive for payment of this £70,000 to the Trade Facilities Board. He has had that put to him in the form of a question tabled in this House, but he has never ventured to answer it. He must shoulder the responsibility for having induced the Trade Facilities Board to enter into this agreement. It has been suggested that the whole of the circumstances connected with this matter should form the subject of a select committee enquiry, and I consider that the Minister’s mismanagement affords ample grounds for every hon. member pressing for such an enquiry. Statements have been made by public men like Mr. Alexander Aitken which throw a very clear light on the transactions in connection with Doornkop Estates. A Minister of this Cabinet, in a letter giving his views in regard to the Doornkop Estates, said he had formed a favourable opinion before he became a Minister, and went on to express the opinion that the purchase of these plots would prove a sound investment, and added that that opinion was strengthened by the guarantees of the company. What is the truth about these guarantees? Giving evidence under oath, Mr. Aitken stated that these guarantees never existed, and Mr. Rosenberg also, under oath, admitted that the bank guarantees mentioned in the “Sunday Times” never actually existed in fact. The testimonials also spoke highly of the personnel of the Doornkop Board, yet Judge de Villiers had condemned Rosenberg in unmeasured terms.

What is the date of that?

I am not concerned with the date; I am dealing with facts that are beyond doubt.

What date was it?

The Minister may barrack as long as he likes. I am prepared to prove that a Minister of the Crown set his hand to a document, and that one of the leading accountants of this country said that these guarantees referred to therein never existed at any time. Yet the Minister of Labour has declined to agree to my motion for a select committee. It is all very well for him to indulge in mock heroics. Let him give us this select committee, and the people of South Africa will know the truth. I say again that the public were induced by misleading testimonials to buy plots, and that the people who signed these testimonials never bought plots themselves.

On a point of order: this House is asked to vote three items, namely, £15,000 compensation to tenant-farmers, £15,000 advances for work and expenses, and £1,750 for payment of interest on a loan at 5 per cent. I would ask whether the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is relevant in dealing with transactions and other things which took place long before the Government entered into the contract with this company for the settlement at Doornkop. Is the hon. member in order in raising matters which took place before I met Mr. Rosenberg, or should he not deal with the specific items before the House?

The hon. member should confine himself to these particular items. It is very difficult to know how far the hon. member is dealing with these items, but I must ask him to confine himself to them as far as possible.

I hope that I have not in any way infringed the rules. I was dealing with the origin of the matter, and I may have gone a little far afield, but I was led to do that because of the Minister’s attitude towards the request for a select committee. I wish to point out that to-day we are being asked to vote money to pay for the mismanagement of the Minister of Labour. The Minister is the person directly responsible, and, if there were any justice, he would be surcharged, and made to pay the money out of his salary. I have invited the Minister to disclose to this House the first agreement he entered into with Mr. Rosenberg. I am advised that that agreement was actually signed, but not put into operation, and he was allowed subsequently to enter into another one less favourable to the Government. The agreement which Mr. Rosenberg got he took to Europe. [Time limit.]

I take it that the Ministers are acting with joint responsibility having regard to all that has been undertaken by the Cabinet. This is a new item of £1,750. The committee has never been given the fullest information on the subject. If the committee is asked to vote this money, I take it will become responsible to the Imperial Government for the repayment of £70,000 in connection with the Doornkop Estate. I would like to point out that once you admit liability by paying the interest, it is an adoption of the Government’s action in undertaking the payment of the capital sum of £70,000. I do not think we are responsible. I do not know how far the Minister has bound his Government, but I have yet to learn that this Government can undertake liability for the company without the consent of this House. I would like the Minister to tell us by what authority he has assumed liability for the £70,000, and whether he has done so with the consent of the Cabinet.

I would like to ask whether this £1,750 will be secured, and, if so, in what way. Will it be secured under the first bond, or will it come under a second bond or a third bond? The Minister told us a second bond would be passed. Will this £1,750 operate as a second charge, because in the ordinary course, the £1,750 would be secured under the first bond on the assets of the company in favour of the Trades Facilities Board. If the Government are going to pay the amount to the Trades Facilities Board I want to know whether the Minister is taking a cession from the British Government. We understood when this scheme was originally submitted that the whole idea was the employment of white labour. The reason why Parliament consented to the scheme was because it was going to employ so many white men. In view of the fact that the Minister is advancing a further £15,000 for working expenses to the Doornkop Company, I would like to know whether he has made it a sine qua non that the company must employ white labour, or whether in point of fact the company is employing black labour. I understand that all the white labourers have been turned off.

Are you not pleased with that?

Why should I be pleased? What a ridiculous interjection! This House was originally asked to support this scheme because white labour was to be employed. It was to prove to the country what white labour could do. Now we are asked to vote another £15,000 for working expenses to pay whom? Black labourers! The Minister of Labour wandered round the country, and said he was going to deliver the goods. The only scheme he has launched has been a hopeless failure, and he is now asking us to pay for that failure. The Minister of Labour has got a lot to answer for. I should like the Minister to make it perfectly clear in replying as to what is going to happen to the £1,750, and what the £15,000 expenses is to be used for, and whether his department will see to it that there are not unnecessary overhead charges, whether he is providing that Mr. Rosenberg is to draw a reasonable fee only as managing director. Will the Minister tell us whether Mr. Rosenberg is still drawing £1,600 as managing director?

He has never yet had it.

It is not your fault that he has not had it. As far as you are concerned, you were quite prepared to give it to him. But is he limited now? Is the Minister exercising any control in regard to the expenditure? The agreement contains a most extraordinary provision, namely, that the Government is not to receive interest until 5 per cent, has been paid by the company on a block of 54,000 shares. I cannot understand how the Cabinet could possibly have agreed to this. I have never heard of such an agreement, for a group of ordinary shareholders to receive a preference over a mortgagee whose mortgage is for money lent and advanced. I am sure the Minister of Finance will agree that this provision involves quite a new principle. It only goes to prove what an unbusinesslike man the Minister of Labour is. The time has come for us to have more business in the Government and less Government interference in business.

I do not think it possible to find a more scandalous misuse of legitimate criticism than that which the South African party has made with regard to Doornkop. The scheme was started to provide employment for white men in the growing of sugar cane, but at once the tools of the sugar trust rose in this House and tried to kill an independent company. They went round amongst the men at Doornkop and sent agents there to make them dissatisfied. They raised such an agitation that the position could not be continued. I remember the stories they told us in this House.

On a point of order, I wish to call attention to the remark of the hon. member that the “tools of the sugar trust” rose in this House and made a “scandalous misuse of criticism.” I ask that those words be taken down.

The rule as to the taking down of an hon. member’s words is quite obsolete. I did not hear the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) make use of the words referred to, but if he did so he must withdraw at once.

I withdraw the words “political mouthpiece.”

The hon. member must also apologize.

I will apologize. I say they are the political mouthpiece in this House for the sugar industry.

On a point of order, to whom does the hon. member refer? The hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) and myself are the only representatives of the sugar industry in this House.

That is not a point of order.

I understood the hon. member was the member for Zululand, and not for the sugar industry.

To whom do you refer?

To you. When the scheme was started every effort was made to damn it by the Opposition. I remember the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) saying that cane would not grow there. I also remember the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) saying no mill would ever be erected there; but I have seen both the cane and the mill. They managed to disaffect the men to such an extent that the first attempt was a failure. Having done that, they are now doing their leved best to prevent the Government getting its money back. If this company is not assisted through the crisis which has been created by South African party criticism, then it is possible that the Government’s money may be lost, but if the company is helped, I am satisfied that the Government will get every penny back.

You are an optimist.

I have been there.

I have also been there.

You did not take advantage of your eyes.

What do you know about farming?

As much as you know about stoking.

The only thing I am sorry for is that the Minister did not take the whole thing over as a State enterprise, and then it would have been successful. Hon. members played on the racial feelings of the people there. I have heard of racial prejudice being instilled into the men by some hon. members. I am sorry the Minister was not able to accept the offer of Mr. Rosenberg to take the thing over in its entirety. At the back of this criticism is an attempt to make political capital out of an incident in the career of the Government, which started well, and would have ended well but for the South African party.

I did not intend to say a word in this debate, but the speech of the last speaker compels me to do so. The House knows that the only speech which the hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) made on Doornkop was one of approval. The sugar industry has considerably supported the Government in its experiment on Doornkop. The Minister knows that some of the most representative sugar men have been only too willing to advise him. My own attitude has been one of encouragement. My criticism has been entirely levelled at the economic values. Is it not a fact that at the inception of the scheme the Minister received assistance from the sugar industry? It is a pernicious statement and a tissue of falsehoods, to say that the sugar industry has done anything to kill the Doornkop scheme. I consider it a reflection upon a great industry on which the prosperity of Durban very largely depends. For the hon. member to make statements of that kind shows the political bias that animates all he says. What is the whole position regarding Doornkop? The criticism that has been levelled has not been levelled at Doornkop itself as a sugar-growing proposition or a milling proposition. The criticism which was first brought forward was brought by myself before the Government had anything to do with Doornkop. It was brought forward when a Minister of the Crown, a judge of the Supreme Court, and a leading police officer associated themselves officially with an advertisement inserted by Mr. Rosenberg in the “Sunday Times.” This speculative gentleman purchased an area of ground in Natal which he proposed to cut up along the usual orchard scheme lines into 25 acre plots. It was the old pineapple scheme translated to sugar growing. The people appealed to were the ordinary working men, who were to acquire these allotments by monthly payments. It was held out to them that they would thus provide for a rainy day. Mr. Rosenberg would plant and develop the land and ultimately they would obtain an income of something like £800 a year. It was our protesting against the Minister of Justice allowing his official position to be used in that connection which first brought the question on to the floor of the House. After having protested in the strongest possible terms against a Minister of the Crown using his influence to support a speculative scheme of this nature, we found the Government subsequently stepping in and relieving Rosenberg of all responsibility and using state money to assist him. That is where the trouble began. It was the fact that a speculator, who first set out with official backing by means of advertisement to float a bogus company, or what I considered was a bogus company at the time, and who subsequently got the assistance of the Government and the money of the Government to develop along an entirely different route that started the Doornkop controversy. We were told that this new scheme was to be the greatest, finest, grandest scheme of co-operation ever devised in South Africa. Here was to be a magnificent estate offering a glowing future for 100 tenant farmers. I know the appalling conditions under which these tenant farmers were taken to Doornkop, all herded together with their wives and children in a long shed, with blankets hung between family and family. Many of the children were going to school unfed and the schoolmaster had to make them tea on a stove before school began to sustain them during the morning. This, too, on the hot coast of Natal, with the sun a hundred in the shade sometimes! These people from the south were living under conditions which were a disgrace to South Africa. I have not cared to drag this matter into the political arena, but when the hon. member says the sugar industry has been up against Doornkop, it is a manifest falsehood.

The hon. member must not use that term.

I withdraw that. I am sorry. I have been to Doornkop on several occasions and I have gone all over the place. I have talked to the men, I have seen the schoolmaster. I have seen their children, I have commiserated with the people and done my best to help them. I have not said anything to hinder the efforts of the Government. All I have done has been to discuss the scheme on its merits and I have said from the very inception that the economic basis of the scheme was such that it was bound to fail. The country will go entirely wrong if it thinks for one moment that the criticism has been criticism of an ordinary sugar scheme. It is not that at all.

I would ask the hon. member who has just spoken whether he is prepared outside this House to say that Mr. Rosenberg floated a bogus company. That is what he said. [Disorder.]

Will you have a select committee?

The hon. member knows full well that with the early company Mr. Rosenberg started when these men who were first placed there left, they were paid 20s. to the £.

Under threat of legal proceedings.

It is only right that when members make these accusations about a bogus company they should mention that these people who were there got 20s. in the £. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) that this is really glaring exploitation of certain happenings in order that members on that side—who, more than anyone else, have brought about the breaking up of this scheme—might make further political capital out of it at the coming election. It is nothing more nor less. It is so obvious. Who else has taken part in any honest legitimate criticism?A handful of sorry members from Natal. When I sit here and listen to some of their arguments and their repetitions, I feel inclined to say I am ashamed of Natal and its representation.

They are ashamed of you.

When the best thing they can do is to go out of their way in a most scandalous manner to exploit this for electioneering purposes.

On a point of order, is the Minister entitled to use the word “scandalous”?

I do not think the Minister ought to use those words.

To meet the position I will be glad to substitute another word which is parliamentary and not out of order.

Withdraw.

And this is from the very party responsible for Umfolosi.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask you again if the Minister may use that term “scandalous”?

I told the Minister it was not parliamentary and he should not use it.

I will withdraw that word. The whole thing speaks for itself. It is hardly necessary for me to try and find an adjective suitable for the situation. This comes from the party opposite, which is responsible for the wasting of the taxpayers’ money to the extent of three quarters of a million pounds on that flour deal. You have only to read the latest reports of the Auditor-General.

On a point of order, the Minister was good enough to draw attention to a slight irrelevancy on my part. May I ask whether his reference to the grain elevators and flour purchase is relevant or not?

I do not know what flour mills have to do with this at all.

I mentioned it only in passing, but I could also mention the quarter of a million wastage on the grain elevator and many other things. That money has been wasted, but my point is, in regard to Doornkop, this money has been secured by assets, whereas on the other side it has been a dead loss. Why should we pay the £1,750 interest? Hon. members, if they think a reply is necessary, have supplied the answer. This sum goes to the Trade Facilities fund, and hon. members themselves said I was one of those responsible for the Trade Facilities fund coming into it and advancing the money. This was only one of the obligations the Government guaranteed to the Trade Facilities Fund; when they agreed to the cancellation of the original contract, part of the money they had to get back was the interest on the loan. The second question was, how was this to be repaid? My whole trouble is if we had had a crushing season and there had been some proceeds from the mill, as there will be this year —substantial proceeds—these obligations would have been met and there would have been no difficulty. This debt will be wiped off as soon as we start the work. How can they pay back until we get revenue from the organization to which you are advancing the money? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will tell you that with regard to any business. We have not yet had a crushing season. The next question was, what control have we over the expenditure? Frequent reference has been made to Mr. Rosenberg’s £1,600 a year. He never had £1,600 a year. What hon. members forgot, or purposely avoided saying was that this £1,600 a year, originally provided for in the agreement, was only after the co-operative society had been formed under the original proposal. But. Mr. Rosenberg never got one penny, and as far as the Government money is concerned, he never drew sixpence. The co-operative society was never formed because the men got discontented. With regard to the control over expenditure, I explained the other day that the Government had one nominee on the board, a Government official, who has many years’ experience in the Audit Department and is a fully qualified accountant. On all matters of expenditure his vote can veto all other members of the board. Could you have any more control than that? You cannot have any question of extravagant expenditure because it is controlled by a Government representative. The £1,750 is secured by agreement with the company out of the profits of the crushing of the cane this season, and it will be repaid. The first bond is held by the British Government, and the second bond is held by us. Hon. members will see that in the agreement, a legal document, provision is made for the second bond, and why it could not be registered is, it is less than two weeks ago when we received the necessary documents which would enable us to proceed. The position is secured. I have dealt with all the essential points, but not with the fluff. One more point I will deal with, and that is the question of interest on the £53.000. What hon. members have avoided telling the committee is that as far as Mr. Rosenberg is concerned, in other words, as far as the South African shares are concerned, there as a special provision at the end of the agreement whereby all dividends accruing to the South African shares shall be waived and not be paid. Mr. Rosenberg is placed on exactly the same footing as the Government.

What kind of crop do you expect to get?

Some three or four thousand tons of sugar are expected this year.

Perhaps I may be allowed to make some observations on this matter: I hope the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) will be satisfied that the criticisms offered from this side of the House do not emanate, as has been suggested, from the political mouthpiece of the sugar industry. I have never heard a more ridiculous charge. The Government was good enough to associate this matter with two transactions of the late Government. One was the grain elevator at Durban. Well, the Government appointed a committee to inquire into that. The other was the loss over the flour transaction. There was also an inquiry into that. Will the Minister now stand by an inquiry into this matter? There are many things in this which I and a good many other people in this country are not very happy about. There were certain associations between the first company, Ministers and others in high office, and we are particularly anxious to know why the gentlemen who have been referred to should come out with a company under the aegis of Ministers and others. I think that in the interests of the Government, apart from the question of expenditure, it will be a good thing to have an inquiry into this matter. Why are we, I ask, to vote this particular amount of interest? The Minister has told us that it is interest payable on money advanced to the Trade Facilities in London; but why should we take this risk? I suppose we should never have come into this business but for the fact that the Government had given its imprimatur. I think the same thing applies to Lord Invernairn’s shares. This sort of thing does not help the credit of the country. To say that this scheme failed because the white settlers were frightened off by a few farmers in Natal does not carry very much weight.

And the Natal press.

Of all things, men will not throw over their bread and butter. The Minister tries to tell us that they were frightened because of the Natal press. We can hardly accept that. The fact is that they threw this up, and the scheme is now a private concern. The Minister has stated that every penny of this money will come back. I hope it will be so. Why should this gentleman enjoy Government assistance to the extent of £150,000 in exploiting a piece of sugar land in Natal? I certainly think the whole thing is most unsatisfactory, and I think the Government would be wise to appoint some kind of committee, not necessarily a select committee, to investigate the origin of the scheme, why it failed, and what the security of the Government is. If this were done, it would reassure the public.

Surely the House knows the history of this thing from A to Z.

That may be so, but things have been said under oath in our courts of law which have made people very uneasy, and for that reason I think it should be investigated with a view to re-establishing the credit of the Government, which has undoubtedly suffered in this matter.

Towards the end of 1927 I was a member of a commission which enquired into the conditions of the Doornkop settlement, and at that time I reported verbally that the great cause of the failure was the position and surroundings of the settlement. We know that any fool can pull down a house, but no fool can build one. I do not want to say that hon. members opposite and those involved in the agitation against Doornkop are fools, but I speak figuratively. We reported that it was impossible to go on with Doornkop, because all the time there was agitation amongst the people so that they said: “Why has the Government put us in the hands of a Jew?” I wonder if our Jewish friends opposite, and the Jewish supporters of the South African party know what came out, and what the opinion of more than one hon. member opposite of them is. They will use the Jews very well for political purposes, but they do not mind stabbing them in the back. The great thing which was told the settlers is that they have been put into the hands of a Jew and that a Jew as such is a deceiver.

On a point of order, I do not follow all the reflections which the hon. member has just made, but has he the right to introduce the question of a particular sect of the people into the debate? He tells us that a personal report has been made to the Government. We have had no opportunity of seeing the report. Is it not manifestly unfair?

What is your point of order?

I cannot help it that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is a Jew.

[Inaudible.]

I merely say that it transpired that the agitation and surroundings incited the people at Doornkop, and that the biggest thing that was mentioned was: “You have been put in the hands of a Jew and are therefore necessarily deceived.”

Who said that?

The settlers at Doornkop told that to the commission, and if the hon. member refers to the list of names in the Department of Labour he will know the names. The agitation was so great that we told the Minister that he should stop his scheme. We are not surprised that there was agitation, because when the Minister of Railways and Harbours began employing Dutch-speaking people in the railway service at Durban there was a similar agitation on the ground that the poor white man was coming to Natal to spoil the vote. The sugar people in Natal were certainly not innocent of the agitation, because they were opposed to a sugar concern subsidised by the Government. The dissatisfaction amongst the Doornkop people was such that we could not satisfy them—so much harm had been done that the matter could not be rectified again. We therefore advised the Minister to stop the settlement as quickly as he could because the agitation was driving all the people away. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asked why a commission of enquiry was not appointed to go into the matter. If we are to appoint commissions to enquire into all the settlements of the South African party Government that have failed then we shall get wonderful revelations. If we go to the settlements at Tzaneen, Standerton, Winburg, Klerkskraal, at Mooi River, and Koppies—

On a point of order, are you going to allow us to reply to these particular accusations?

The hon. gentleman refers to one settlement as compared with another. If he goes into details I shall have to stop him.

I am not going into details, but we should have wonderful revelations if enquiry were instituted in those cases. Then we should get revelations which are not a matter of some thousands of pounds, but of more than £1,000,000 loss. Then we shall come to places where we shall find traces of settlements, but no settlements.

Why, then, do you not appoint the commissions?

Where shall we land if we appoint commissions to investigate all the futile settlements? No, this is a case where people who live in glass houses must not throw stones, because we should get wonderful revelations of the South African party Government’s failures. We can take it that the Doornkop settlement was started in good faith, we had to find work for the poor people, but then an agitation was started, and the Minister subsequently learned that it was impossible to undertake such a work in those circumstances. The great cause of the failure is not due to the Minister or Mr. Rosenberg—let the latter be what he may, and even if certain things have been charged against him. Not the least tittle of evidence has ever been produced that Mr. Rosenberg committed any fraud in connection with Doornkop.

Certain reflections have been made on the management of the Doornkop estate, and on the originator of this concern. In the case of the Durban grain elevator we had a first class enquiry.

What is the charge?

Mismanagement.

In what way?

If the hon. gentleman had any regard for his own honour and reputation, he would agree to an enquiry. We have had this matter before the House on three or four occasions.

For a little capital, that is all.

That is too cheap altogether. If the hon. Minister has so little regard for his own reputation, and if the Prime Minister has so little regard for the reputation of his Cabinet, all I can say is that I am very much surprised. It is to the interests of the Cabinet that the matter should be enquired into, and I hope, for the sake of South Africa, that it will be cleared up.

I accept that. I demand that my hon. friend will do what is his duty and not run away. It has been very clearly indicated that there are charges against the honour of my friend here. I ask my hon. friend not to run away but to formulate his charge and it will be enquired into immediately. If that is not done, I shall charge my hon. friend and his colleagues with—

With what?

Well, shall I say cowardice? I will not. But what they lay themselves open to is much worse than cowardice—it is making insinuations and charges which they are not prepared to bring to such an issue that steps can be taken to enquire into them. I say this, that no honourable man, and least of all no hon. member of this Assembly, should do anything of that kind. I stand up and I accept the challenge, but my hon. friend must formulate his charge and an investigation shall be made immediately.

I brought no charge, I simply stood up to make a suggestion to the Government as to the best way to clear the matter up. It is not for me to formulate a charge.

Then you have no right to ask for a committee.

Of course I have. I am interested in the honour and the maintenance of the good reputation of this House, which has been very gravely reflected on. The Minister has a precedent in the way in which we acted over the grain elevators. When reflections were made on our management, I said we would have the strongest commission possible to inquire into it. That commission sat and it was the best thing we could have done in the matter.

There have been veiled insinuations—very thinly veiled. Throughout this debate it is nothing which really detracts from using a number of phrases which can only have one interpretation to the ordinary man for a member to get up the next day and say he did not mean it.

I said I would stand or fall by it.

If hon. members make charges which they insinuate and will not formulate, we have our own opinion of hon. members’ tactics. In the matter itself, to me it is a very simple thing. My hon. friend undertook an enterprise to try and open a new avenue, a new way, a new industry in which a number of men might be employed. We regret that failure. Some of the causes of failure have been intimated to the House. When you are dealing with human beings, a great deal depends for success upon the degree of enthusiasm which they put into it. When you are dealing with men belonging to a class with, unfortunately, small opportunities for culture and of criticising what may be told them, a great deal depends upon their maintaining an atmosphere of hope throughout the intervening period until the results of their labour fructify. In this case, unfortunately, there certainly was every effort made—I will not go into the motives —but a great deal of discontent was spread amongst them.

By whom?

I am making no allegations.

Thinly veiled insinuations!

I will say this, that the speeches of members in this House would discourage anybody. We were told at the first we were mad to go into it, that it could not possibly pay. I am not trying to introduce any temper into this matter. It had the effect, along with other things, no doubt—a long period of waiting—of making these men discontented. My only regret is that my hon. friend did not go on for another two or three years, but I expect his judgment is right, in fact I am sure it is. Things arrived at such a stage of discontent among the men that they were leaving, and it was only banging your head against a brick wall to replace them. It was said among them, “we are only working for Rosenberg.” It was not so. Had it gone through to the crushing stage and they were in receipt of their two-thirds share, I believe all these men would have felt themselves extraordinarily well-off and full of gratitude to my hon. friend. Either we took it over from them, lock, stock and barrel, or we said, “We abandon this now; we have run it as far as we can.” But the money is secure. It is all very well for hon. members to shake their heads, but we also have our technical advisers, and our advice is that the position is quite secure and a sound one.

What about the co-operative society; was that not the main reason?

That could have been got over. An equitable arrangement could have been made which would have produced just the same thing for the tenant. Anyhow, it failed, but the failure was due chiefly to the discontent amongst the men, and, I think, from external sources too. It also had this inherent defect—too long a period from its inception for the type of man they got there—the time they were living on this subsistence allowance, for men of this calibre.

I should like to say a few words about the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister, because I do not think it would be right to leave the matter where it stands.

I do not want it to be left there.

The Prime Minister said he was prepared to appoint a committee of inquiry if we were prepared to make definite charges of dishonourable conduct against the Minister. I do not know if anybody on this side has made such charges, or said anything on which such charges can be based; if we had, it would be our duty to come forward and demand such an inquiry. What we said was that in connection with this company statements have been made, and made publicly, and under oath in courts of law, which, if true, can only have one meaning, and that is that certain shares were used by the promoters to get facilities from the Government—a statement made by Mr. Maxwell, and repeated by I then hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I say that may be untrue, and as untrue as many other statements which are made; but it gives a nasty impression, and is a reason why the Government should be willing to have an inquiry—to go into these insinuations which are floating about. We have no ground for these charges, but we say it is not good to have them floating about.

I agree with the hon. member; I do not think we can leave the thing there. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) started it, and when challenged by my hon. friend (the Minister of Labour), ran away. This afternoon the same tactics have been followed. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—his words have been taken down—charged my hon. friend, not with incompetence or that his settlement had gone wrong—like dozens of the settlements of my hon. friends opposite—if that is the charge we do not want a select committee for that; but he went further and made certain definite charges respecting the honour, not of my hon. friend here (Mr. Boydell), but in which that of other Ministers was involved; and my hon. friend ran away. But the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has now shifted the ground somewhat. He said certain statements had been made, but the hon. member either believes there is some substance in that, or he does not. If members of the Opposition believe that this Government is involved, they should not run away, and as far as I am concerned, the matter shall not rest there, and I shall advise my friend, the Prime Minister, to have an enquiry. [Disorder.] Do their charges stand? Why must we have an enquiry if there are no charges? Let any hon. member opposite stand up and say that these charges stand, and I shall know what to do.

The Minister has said that if he was satisfied he would demand an enquiry. Let him stick to that.

This thing has gone so far that a reflection has been cast upon my honour. I shall now ask this House to set up a select committee to enquire into any actions or dealings on my part in connection with the allegations made against me as a Minister. I am not going to ask hon. members opposite to formulate their charges. So far these charges have been by insinuation, and gradually a few of the Natal members have been worked up so as to make it appear that there was something in it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) have been drawn into this matter, I believe, by the general accusations put forward by hon. members behind them, not because the hon. member for Cape Town or the hon. member for Yeoville believed in them, but because they were out, from the start, to make party capital out of it.

It does not refer to you.

Yes, it does refer to me, and I am going to ask, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of other Ministers, that a select committee be set up, and that hon. members on the other side be called to go before the select committee and state what evidence they have upon which they base their insinuations. The sooner that is done the better I will be pleased, and the better it will be for the Government. We will then see what evidence they can produce, and what actions on the part of Ministers have been unworthy, dishonourable or discreditable.

I am very glad to hear that the Minister has at last agreed to a select committee on the subject, but it must be very clearly understood that we make no insinuations. We state as facts that, after having been repeatedly warned to keep clear of this thing, the hon. the Minister has got into this tangle. We are not questioning his personal honour, but his ability, and we certainly think that the matter should be inquired into. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) made a great song about other land settlements, but land settlements that have failed in the past have been inquired into before select committees. This inquiry has got to be an inquiry into the whole administration from start to finish.

Oh.

Who is running away now? The charge I make against the Minister is one of gross incompetence and gross negligence. Hon. members will remember the chronological sequence of this thing. Originally there appeared advertisements in the “Sunday Times” praising this company, signed by the hon. the Minister of Justice. We raised the matter in this House whether it was right for a Minister of the Crown to make such statements in the public press. In spite of that, after having been warned, after the Minister of Justice himself admitted in this House that he had been indiscreet in signing the advertisement, the Minister of Labour writes a letter to this company endorsing their bona fides, and upon the strength of that letter the British Government is drawn into this matter. If the Minister will look at the contract with the company, he will see that they have even gone the length of embodying in this agreement the letter written by the Minister to the company. If you read the contract, it is quite clear to me that the British Government was induced to make this loan on the strength of a letter from the Minister of Labour to the company.

On the strength of the contract.

No, the British Government appears to state that they are entering into this contract because of the support given to the company by the Union Government, and as evidence of this, they actually embody in the report the letter of the Minister of Labour. The whole thing should be inquired into for the good of the Government themselves. I am not questioning the personal honour of the Minister, or of any Minister, but, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has pointed out, affidavits have been made in the law courts, and statements have been made by witnesses, throwing a certain amount of suspicion, and, I think, in the interests of Ministers themselves, they should not burke an inquiry.

Do you father that?

No; as I have said, we do not doubt the integrity of Ministers, but witnesses on oath in a court of law have made statements which certainly involve the Government or its officials, and I think, in the interests of the Government and of the people of the Union, the matter should be cleared up.

I have not taken part in this debate up till now, and I now wish to endeavour to put the case from this side of the House. We want an assurance from the Minister of an enquiry into the whole of the circumstances in connection with the Doornkop Company. We have not made any personal insinuations against the hon. the Minister, and we do not intend to be deflected from our demands for an enquiry by mock heroics on the part of the Minister, or even of the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, the other day when the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was speaking, he made no insinuations against the hon. the Minister, and when the Minister rose the next day and asked for an enquiry into everything in connection with his own personal honour, the hon. member for Illovo again said that he made no personal insinuations against the Minister. But what he did say, and what we say is, that the whole of the circumstances show gross mismanagement and ineptitude on the part of the Minister and the circumstances surrounding the company all demand an enquiry in the public interest. The hon. member for Illovo has put on the notice paper a motion for the appointment of a select committee to go into these matters. That is what we want. If the Government consults the interests of the public and wishes to clear away any suspicions which they say exist in the public mind, then the proper course is to grant this enquiry. It is unfortunate that officials of the Government, after occupying important positions, should be mixed up with this public company.

How mixed up?

I will tell the committee. When the company was formed some years ago, an advertisement was put in a Johannesburg paper giving certificates from highly-placed Government servants, important people occupying positions which one would have imagined would have prevented them from taking part in the flotation of the company. Here is one signed by Judge Krause, a judge of the Supreme Court. His recommendation was published in the newspaper in either August or October, 1924—

It is true that, when the judge saw his name in the paper, he immediately asked Mr. Rosenberg to withdraw it.

That has nothing to do with the Government scheme.

I want to know how it is that a judge and important officials in the Government service should be allowed to take part in the flotation of a company of this sort, contrary to all the traditions of the public service and the judicial bench.

What has it to do with Doornkop?

It is the beginning of this company. Then there was a similar testimonial from the Surveyor-General at Pretoria. Maj. Trigger, of the South African Police, also wrote on the 21st July, 1924—

I do not want to say anything much about the connection the Minister of Justice had with this company. Had he been here I would have drawn attention to an action of his quite 12 months after he stated in this House that he would have nothing more to do with Mr. Rosenberg. I do say we want to know how it is that important officials of the Government, whose names carry weight, were induced to help to float this company, and put off shares on the public, because Mr. Rosenberg within a few days wrote to the “Sunday Times” to say that these advertisements had brought in 107 applications for land in one day. We want to know also why the Government gave financial assistance to this company, and how it was that the Minister was so foolish and so ill-advised as to come in and assist this man, Mr. Rosenberg. One would have imagined he would have made inquiries, and if he had inquired he would have found Mr. Rosenberg had, most unfortunately for him, a most unsavoury reputation. There is a long judgment by Mr. Justice de Villiers in connection with a case two or three years before, when he said Mr. Rosenberg was a totally undesirable man. This is the man that the Minister chooses to heap Government favours on and spend heaps of money on. We have already spent £76,700, including the items before us. I hope we will get it back, but it is still in the air, and, in addition, we have guaranteed to the Trade Facilities Board in England another £70,000, making £146,700, which so far we are committed to. We do not know what further sums we shall be asked to vote as time goes on. It may go on for several years more. I think the case is an exceedingly strong one. We want to know the circumstances under which the Trade Facilities Board was induced to lend £70,000. [Time limit.]

I have been wondering whether this debate is confined to frontbenchers, or whether any other member can join in. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) may be a very good political niblick, put up to get his party out of bad “lies,” but he is not making too good a job of it. I have listened attentively to the indictment set out against the Doornkop white-labour scheme, both on the previous occasion and this afternoon, and I am very pleased indeed that the serious charges repeatedly made are to be investigated. This stunt has been carried far enough! The political scavenger from Illovo (Mr. Marwick), for instance.

Order, order!

The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

All right, I withdraw.

And apologize.

Not likely. The hon. member for Illovo—

On a point of order, must the hon. member not apologize?

It is left to the discretion of the Chairman as to whether an hon. member should apologize as well as withdraw.

I withdraw calling the hon. member for Illovo a “political scavenger,” but he goes round all the little dorps in Natal during the recess making allegations of dishonesty against the several Ministers of the Pact Government—in a similar way to what he does here. And the unfortunate state of affairs is that there is no one to contradict him. The places are very small—too small even to boast a press reporter—but, nevertheless, the speeches appear in the newspapers the following morning. I quite agree and think it only right, and I anticipated that the South African party would make this a propaganda session, but for goodness sake let them stick to the truth and play the game fairly. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), who represents self-admittedly the sugar industry in Natal—by the way, I always thought that hon. members came here to represent the public, and not any particular industry—has also been stumping the dorps in Natal, and it may be of interest to the committee to hear what he said at Howick on January 8th last with reference to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick)—

What has that to do with it?

It has a lot to do with the debate, because it shows conclusively how the same tactics used here to mislead the public are also practised in the small towns of Natal. The hon. member for Zululand is reported to have said—in fact, he perhaps sent this report to the press—

The same sort of dope is handed out all over Natal during the recess, and the House ought to know it. There is an hon. member of the group doing the same thing in Natal at the moment. I was reading in the paper to hand to-day of his comment upon the no-confidence debate, and he said that the South African party had the Pact Government beaten to a frazzle and that everything presented from their side of the House was met only by abuse. The hon. member for Illovo asks questions in this House concerning charges of political bias made by a newspaper in Natal against a magistrate—

The hon. member must keep to the point.

I have made my points. Misrepresentation and allegations of dishonesty are the sole “stock-in-trade” of the hon. member for Illovo.

The hon. member is like his leaders; he tries to throw a smokescreen round this House, but we do not intend, as I said before, to be side-tracked. He makes a personal attack on the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and at the same time gives him a splendid testimonial. If the hon. member were as persistent and courageous as the hon. member for Illovo, he would probably have a better chance of being returned at the next election than he has now. But, as I said, we want information about the Government’s connection with this scheme. What has induced the Government to agree not to draw any of the money earned by this company until Lord Strathnairn has earned 5 per cent, on his shares? The Government has a share or interest in this company.

What shares does the Government hold?

I would advise the Minister to ask his colleagues. The committee has a right to know why such an unbusinesslike thing was done. We have proved that the tenant-farmers scheme was a failure because its inherent weakness and the conditions created by the Government or Mr. Rosenberg were such that the tenant-farmers never had a chance of coming out. We are entitled to ask the Government to inquire into this matter as well as the other matters. The Government cannot evade their responsibilities in this matter by trying to shift the issue and making the committee believe that we are making personal charges and insinuations with regard to the Minister of Labour. We do say that this unsatisfactory and foolish scheme should be enquired into in the public interest, especially as we are asked to vote large sums of money every year.

I did not intend speaking, but after what has been said by the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick), I feel obliged to say a few words. I consider it remarkable that when an investigation is to be instituted into something which it is desired to hush up, the Government always sends the hon. member for Potchefstroom there. We know what happened on a former occasion when there was trouble, and when we induced the Minister of Labour to make enquiry. What happened? The hon. member for Potchefstroom was sent there. I do not know if anybody accompanied him to make an enquiry; I do not know what happened—

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion.

I am obliged to the Chairman for the correction, and will return to the point in a moment.

The hon. member must do so at once.

The hon. member was sent to Doornkop and the same thing happened as in the case of Hartebeestpoort dam. Let him submit to the Minister a report on the troubles which the House can see. That is not done. Possibly an investigation was made there, but I do not yet believe it, because the people who live there say that they know nothing about it. That was the case with the Hartebeestpoort dam, but the same is the case with Doornkop. What is now being said? That the South African party have whipped up the people, but why did not the hon. member put it in black and white? We want to have clarity; that is why we are asking for an enquiry. The hon. member is certainly afraid to make a written report to the Minister saying what they found at Doornkop, because then the House and the country will be able to see what the position is. To-day we have to come to the House and ask for an enquiry, but it is the fault of the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He is sent there and drives about in a motor-car. That costs a lot of money. He seems to be the only member who can be used to cover up such things.

The hon. member must not make that charge.

Very well, I withdraw it, but the Government must not send the hon. member for Potchefstroom again, because it creates great dissatisfaction in the country. If the statements made are wrong, well let us investigate them, and then we shall know. If they are wrong, the enquiry will exonerate everybody. If we, however, continue in this way, everybody will think that the Government is afraid of the enquiry. I go so far as to say that we must have everything enquired into as the hon. member for Potchefstroom has said. This is right and fair. The people expect it to be clearly laid down what the position with regard to Doornkop is. If all is well the Government need not be afraid, it is in their interests for the enquiry to be made.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) makes me think that he is addressing a small meeting at Witwatersberg. I want to remind him that he is quite off the track. I was not the commission; it was a commission of five members of whom I was one. The hon. member is not doing his duty. Why does he not ask at the Department of Labour for the report on the Hartebeestpoort dam settlement? A written report was made about that settlement, everything happened in public, and if the hon. member will exercise a little intelligence, and enquire into the matter properly to learn the facts, let him go to the Minister of Labour and ask for the report. Then he will speak quite differently. As for Doornkop, there was another commission, not I alone. It was a commission of the Labour Board. Why does not the hon. member for Witwatersberg ask for a copy of minutes of the meeting of the Labour Board when the report was made? Then he will be fully informed. Then he will more or less talk like a great man. What I was referring to this afternoon, and I want to repeat, is that we heard here about Mr. Rosenberg, and we heard from the settlers that hon. members from Natal represented to them that Rosenberg was a Jew, although there was not a shred of suspicion to be cast on Rosenberg, as he had done nothing wrong. Nothing dishonest on the part of Mr. Rosenberg can be mentioned.

Our complaint is against the Minister.

Not the Minister only, but the whole Cabinet is responsible for the scheme; nothing has been proved. Hon. members opposite are behaving like a lot of mischievous boys. The others are all guilty, only they are entirely innocent. The people on the settlement made the thing impossible. They would not remain after that accusation. It is not our fault, therefore, but that of hon. members themselves. Influence was used in Natal, by people who were not sympathetic towards the present Government, to frighten the people at Doornkop, to make them suspicious, to make them dissatisfied. As I have said it is not difficult to frighten people. It is easy to spread suspicion among them. I say, let us be honest. My hon. friends opposite do not like a strong Afrikander element in the Holy of Holies of the Englishman, Natal. That is the plain truth. They are now blaming the Minister, but they will find nothing. Let them appoint a commission of enquiry, and they will find that the people were so whipped up that they would not live there. I hope, after what I have said, the hon. member for Watwatersberg will speak with a little more sense.

I am sorry that his reverence (I do not know if I may use the expression) has spoken here like that, because I should expect that when he stood up in the House he would stick strictly to the truth. I challenge him to lay on the Table the report he has written. Last year, for example, I approached the Minister of Labour about the report, and asked him to lay it on the Table if it was a confidential report. The Minister did not do it, and to-day the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) says that he submitted a written report. Why then did the Minister say that he only received a verbal report? Whom must I believe now, the Minister, or the hon. member for Potchefstroom. If I must choose I would rather believe the Minister.

If we are appointed as a commission by the Department of Labour, we make a report to the department, and that report is then its property. I believe that the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has enough intelligence to understand that, if the Minister will not show him the report, I cannot help it. But if he asks the Minister he will not deny that we submitted a written report about the Hartebeestpoort dam settlement.

But the Minister surely said that he has no report.

I am talking of the Hartebeestpoort scheme. There is a written report. On the Doornkop scheme we made to the Labour Board a verbal report, of which the minutes exist and can also be shown to the hon. member. I hope that the hon. member for Witwatersberg will now possess the civility and courtesy to believe what I have said here.

I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the wording of the resolution on which the whole of this discussion has been based. Two nights ago I moved the resolution which I propose to read, because under the rules of this House this is treated as a different debate. I moved—

That was my demand, and I repeat that demand. My demand constituted neither more nor less in the way of accusation than is embodied in the four corners of this motion. But I maintain that we cannot determine the whole of the circumstances in which the Government has given financial support to this settlement unless we go into the origin of the relationship of the Government to Mr. Rosenberg. The public are entitled to bear in mind the salient facts of this matter, that a Minister of the Crown wrote a letter which was used as an advertisement, and which appeared in a flamboyant land-selling boost in the press without a remonstrance from him—in which he was quoted as saying to the public that this was a good investment at £25 an acre—20 acres of sugar land at £25 an acre was a sound investment! The public are entitled to know on what grounds the Minister issued such a statement to the public. The public are further entitled to know why the Minister went on to say that the opinion he had previously expressed about this proposition being a good investment was strengthened by the guarantees referred to by the company. The guarantees referred to by the company are embodied in that advertisement in the “Sunday Times.” It says that every purchaser has, as security, over £50,000, and it says in the corner: “The company’s secured guarantee. The company has deposited with the bank security of the value of over £25,000 as a guarantee to purchasers that everything held out to them will be done.” The name of the company is the Doornkop Sugar Estates, the same company that deals with the Minister to-day. The public are not only entitled to know why the Minister says that his confidence was strengthened by the guarantee, but they are also entitled to know why it was said on oath by one of the leading accountants of this country, Mr. Alexander Aitken, that those guarantees never existed, and also why Mr. Rosenberg, on oath, admitted that he had not deposited any guarantees with the bank. When the “Sunday Times” advertisement was brought up in this House the Minister, whose letter had been made use of, stated that he would not again either directly or indirectly support any such proposition. Yet, within 12 months, in connection with this identical proposition, a cable was sent to Messrs. Maxwell Bros., London, by their South African representative, stating that the Minister absolutely vouched for Mr. Rosenberg’s integrity. The public will desire to know the reason for this. We shall have answers to those questions if there is any justice in this House. It is all very well for Ministers to stand up in this House, and, in a spirit of mock heroics, to say: “We have been insulted; we demand vindication.” That is not the question. The question is simply expressed in my resolution, from which I have never departed, and when the Minister of Labour stood up here the other day and said I had hurt his feelings, I said: “I will stand or fall by what I have said in this House,” and I say that again. I have dared the Minister to face a select committee because of his mismanagement of these affairs, and I have indicated what that mismanagement consists of. The Minister was approached by Mr. Rosenberg for his assistance in connection with cheap white labour and the payment of a subsidy. That amounted to £33,000 in hard cash, and the services of the men and their families. These were people who were unable to understand what the Minister put before them, and the Minister must take the responsibility of what was put before those people. The tenant-farmers were definitely told—as this House was told by the Minister—that after the first year’s yield of sugar cane had been crushed, a co-operative company was to be formed and the shares representing the entire value of the Doornkop Estates and sugar mill would be held by the tenant-farmers as to two-thirds, and by the Doornkop Estates as to one-third. Briefly the tenant-farmers were to become two-thirds owners of this estate in their own right. Yet, actually he should have known that the Co-operative Societies Act does not permit of a co-operative company being formed for the development of any land or for a farming proposition. These unfortunate people were deluded by the Minister, and surrendered into the control of a man with the reputation of Mr. Rosenberg. Yet he assisted Mr. Rosenberg to get rid of the incubus of those people around his neck. The public is entitled to know the reason for that. I hope the Prime Minister will not shelter himself behind the equivocal attitude of the Minister of Labour. The Prime Minister, to my mind, is a man of different mould. He has had experience which should fit him for a more courageous, a more high-minded, view of these questions. I appeal to the Prime Minister to grant a select committee. Nothing would satisfy this side of the House better than a select committee to investigate every one of these happenings; and let that select committee have the right to enquire into the whole of the matters which have been put forward. I have read in the House the evidence of Mr. Rosenberg, who said, on oath, that when he was taking up this ground he approached certain persons to participate with him. Surely that is sufficient ground for us to hold an enquiry to satisfy the public whether that statement is true. I do not say it is true, but if it is not true, then let the scoundrel who uttered it bear the punishment. That is my intention. The people we refer to are a judge of the High Court, a Minister of the Crown, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Surveyor-General in the Transvaal. These names should be cleared from such an imputation as that. We have the statement I have read from Mr. Maxwell, who, before he departed from this country, left with me his counsel’s brief, and Mr. Maxwell expressed an opinion so unfavourable to some of the leading people in this country that I hesitate to repeat it in this House. These things demand an enquiry in the interests of South Africa. The Minister’s duty consists in rising and saying that he will grant a select committee with the widest powers of enquiry as to the whole of the circumstances under which the Government came to support this man. One Minister of the Crown has said that he saw the mistake of entering into this matter, and that it would never occur again. Then, within a year of that statement in the House, he had a conversation with Mr. Maxwell’s representative, who cabled to his principal stating that the Minister absolutely vouched for Mr. Rosenberg. The public have a right to know how a public statement in this House can be gone back on—how a statement can be made in the full publicity and hearing of practically every member, and then be completely nullified in the manner described.

The Minister knows perfectly well that there is not a shred of truth in his accusation that hon. members on this side of the House have stirred up discontent amongst the tenant farmers who were at Doornkop. I repeat what I said last session, that the real cause for these men leaving Doornkop was the fact that they were promised by the Minister that they would be allotted a two-thirds share in the Doornkop estate. They found in 1928 that there was not the slightest chance of that happening, because the estate was so deeply involved and had borrowed so much money that they would have to wait a lifetime before they could get the land. Now the Minister trots out this fairy-tale about hon. members on this side being responsible for the men leaving. When it suits his purpose, however, he comes out with another story, according to which drought was the cause of all the trouble. I share the views which have been expressed that the Minister was never competent to handle a matter of this kind, he having never been trained to work of this nature, and it has been proved that he is unfitted to handle matters of high finance. Even to-day I do not believe the Minister knows what the true position is—whether he holds a first, second or third mortgage bond over the property, or any bond at all. A few days ago I asked the Minister what Lord Invernairn’s position was and the Minister replied that he was a shareholder to the extent of 53.000 £1 shares. On a previous occasion the Minister stated that the mill, rails and buildings had cost about £130,000. and the Lord Invernairn had provided the balance, namely, the difference between that amount and the Trades Facilities loan. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) interjected, “What security has Lord Invernairn?” The Minister replied: “We all have the same security—the whole estate.” Prior to that, however, the Minister said that he held a first mortgage on the property, which is not correct. I want the Minister to reconcile that statement with his assertion that Lord Invernairn occupies precisely the same position as the Department of Labour, that his claim ranks concurrently with the Government’s. In reply to another question put by me a few days aero, the Minister again contradicted himself when he informed me that the £53,000 provided by Lord Invernairn was in the form of paid-up share capital. How, then, can Lord Invernairn rank on the same footing with the Government if he is only an ordinary shareholder? I ask the Minister is he going to hold the first, second or third mortgage? This afternoon the Minister said that it would rank as a second bond.

I have explained it a dozen times. If you cannot understand it, I can’t help you.

A few weeks ago the Minister, in reply to a question put by me, said that the Government’s bond was to rank as a first bond. This afternoon he says the Government’s bond will be a second bond. The Minister is absolutely incompetent to handle matters of this sort; he has no business to be occupying the position he does, and to take upon himself the grave responsibility he has done in this case. I want to ask him another question. The Minister said that he was justified in giving to Mr. Rosenberg £60,000 worth of taxpayers’ money for six years, free of interest, that there was no difference in principle between this case and that of other farmers. What does his record show? It shows that he has advanced about £40,000 in connection with tenant farmer schemes, divided amongst 500 farmers, and he claims he is therefore justified in giving one man £60,000 for six years free of interest. Something never contemplated under the ordinary scheme. He has shown a total disregard of the interests of the taxpayer, by allowing the Doornkop company to have that huge sum of money for six years free of interest. It is just as well the taxpayers should know he has made a present to Mr. Rosenberg, calculating the interest which will accrue over six years, of something like £21,000—to this unworthy individual, this flash Johannesburg adventurer. He gives this man these facilities and then he poses as an injured innocent when we want to know the reason why. I think an enquiry is absolutely essential in this case and I consider a committee should be appointed to investigate all these matters. I have asked the Minister the question many times, who introduced Rosenberg to him, and I cannot get an answer. The Minister tells us that one day a gentleman not known to him presented himself at the door of the Minister’s office—blew into the office. [Time limit.]

Amendment put and the committee divided:

Ayes—40.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden. G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes-—52.

Alexander, M.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

I just want to say that a select committee has been urged, and I will just say to those friends opposite that they will get the select committee, and will get it as soon as I am able to know through “Hansard” the words which have actually been used here, and the lawyers can draft the necessary terms of reference.

On Loan Vote O, “Relief of Distress”, £60,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote F, “Local Works and Loans”, £150,000 (standing over),

During the discussion of this vote by the committee yesterday, I pointed out that it was a grant to the South-West Africa Administration for the purpose of settling these Angola farmers in that territory. That Administration kindly undertook the responsibility of this work, which is really in the interests of the Union Government to establish these people, although they are not technically Union nationals, as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) pointed out yesterday, when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) interjected that they are really our own people. Under those circumstances, in the nature of things, it is impossible for this Government to control the details of the expenditure, but, as I pointed out yesterday, it is only fair and reasonable that this House, seeing that it provides the money, should from time to time have the fullest possible information as to how the money is being spent. The details of the expenditure will, of course, be audited by the Auditor of South-West Africa, and the Administration there will have to account to the local Parliament of South-West Africa for the manner in which they have expended the money. The amount is voted in the budget of that territory in the usual way. I do not think hon. members were quite fair yesterday when they suggested that the Administrator there had in the past refused to give information, because, as was stated, the money was being supplied by the Union Government. I am informed that the Administrator, when the matter was under discussion in the local Parliament there, gave a very lengthy explanation and the fullest details of what is being done, so much so that after he had finished the Union section in that House was absolutely satisfied, but some objection was raised by our German friends in that territory. The Administrator tells me that he never used the expression that it was not due to him to give an explanation, as the money was found by the Union Government, but what he did say was that by the settlement of these farmers there, no financial burden was being thrown on the territory, because the money was being found by the Union Government. This House will be able to have the Auditor-General’s report in the usual way. I am quite satisfied about that. I do not think that hon. members could expect the Government from time to time to be in possession of the small details. Then one hon. member suggested that these people should rather have been removed by sea and that it was a mistaken policy which was adopted to go in for these motor lorries; that they should have been brought round to Mossamedes or Lobito Bay, and from there brought by steamer to Walvis Bay, and then some hundreds of miles inland to their destination. I also discussed that matter with the Administrator, and I was informed that when he and the Minister of Lands went to Cunene to interview these people, this question of transportation by sea was definitely discussed and considered, but was found altogether impossible; in fact, these people definitely refused to be conveyed by sea. The principal of the difficulties was, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. D. Reitz) knows, that they were scattered over the whole territory there, and they would have had to be brought to the coast. A camp would have had to be organized in Portuguese territory. The matter was impracticable if not impossible. I understand that the nature of the territory is that for a considerable distance from the coast it is practically a desert, and it would have been impossible for all these people to have come to the coast and be put into a camp until they were removed. Then the question of transportation was made more difficult when the people eventually arrived at Cunene, because they all arrived in a bunch, and they had to be transported within a very short period if they were not to be subjected to the dangers of malaria. Originally it was thought that they could be conveyed by donkey-wagon, but that was impracticable owing to the difficulties of grazing. A very severe drought was experienced, and they only had six inches of rain as against a normal rainfall of 30 inches. As a result of this, the plan was evolved of using motor lorries. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) complained about waste and extravagance, and said that the whole countryside was littered with derelict lorries. He also said that £150,000 had been spent, and that the work should not have cost more than £20,000. I do not know the basis upon which he arrived at that figure. Let me give the actual amounts. The actual cost of 45 lorries was £24,000, and the total expenditure to date of transporting 274 families is about £45,000. It is thought that the total number of families will be 389, comprising some 2,000 souls. In regard to these lorries being derelict on the roads, I am informed that when the Administrator left there about six days ago, the whole of these lorries were still in commission. It is thought that the total cost of transportation will be between £50,000 and £60,000. The following are the figures given by the Administrator to the Assembly. Up to the 31st December, £60,000 was expended upon boring (including 31 drills, 2 lorries, wages, etc.); 42 windmills cost £10,260; reservoirs cost £2,330; settlement (including surveys), £11,710; camps (material, transport, etc.),. £4,285; the cost of 45 lorries for transport was £24,240; and running expenditure amounted to £21,970. A number of cattle distributed amongst these people cost £33,000, and the total expenditure to the 31st December last amounted to £172,300. The hon. member also complained about the manner in which cattle had been purchased there. My information is that Col. de Jager and Capt. McNay were instructed by the Administrator in this regard. At present the purchases are being made by Dr. Schrader and the chairman of the Land Board. They tried to buy from the farmers, but did not succeed, and they are now buying from speculators. The average price paid for breeding cattle is £5, and for oxen £4 17s. 6d. Some of our most experienced officials are employed on this work, and they naturally buy on the best possible terms. The settlers are not compelled to buy cattle from the Administration, but the Administration realizes that cattle must be purchased and sold to the settlers on reasonable terms for purposes of re-stocking. As far as stores are concerned, I can only say that the Administration has not purchased any stores. They called for tenders, which were allotted to people who were prepared to supply the settlers on the most reasonable terms, I think these were all the points raised by hon. members. I have endeavoured to obtain all possible information, but if hon. members want further information, I will endeavour to supply it.

I am sure we are very greatly indebted to the Minister for supplying us with this information. As I stated last night, rumours have been going round as to maladministration, and even now I am not at all satisfied in my own mind. I am very much relieved to hear that the Minister is going to-put his finger on the money bags, and that we are going to get some sort of an account. I should like to ask how much this whole scheme is going to cost the Union? We on this side of the House strongly support the principle of bringing these Angola Boers back amongst their own people, but as the whole burden of doing this is to fall upon the Union taxpayers, I think we have a right to know what it is going to cost. In the first place, a sum of £200,000 was voted. Does that come out of revenue?

It comes out of the Custodian’s Fund.

There were two further items of £150,000 each, which bring the total up to £500,000. On top of that I take it these people will require an advance from the Lands Department for houses and cattle.

No, I have stated that is not so.

I am seeking for information, and I would like to know what we are to be committed to?

It was originally thought that a much larger number of these people would have a considerable number of cattle. Unfortunately it turns out that those with a considerable number of cattle are not so numerous as we expected. It is proposed to give each settler an advance to the extent of £400 for the stocking of these farms, and £150 for a house. The maximum amount for each settler is £800.

Will that be recoverable?

It will come back to this fund, which is available for settlement there.

It won’t come back to the Union?

After they have settled these Angola people, the fund will be available for the settlement of people from the Union. The whole scheme will probably cost £500,000. The land is being given out on the land settlement terms. The principal items of expenditure are for a borehole, a windmill, the building of a house, and the placing of stock on the farm. If a settler has £400 he can get an advance of £400. Some of them have £100 or £200. and some have more. We were led to believe that a larger number would have about £400. The cost of the transportation so far is £45,000.

Only two-thirds of the families have come down.

Three-fourths.

We have got the lorries which were purchased at a cost of £24.000.

Were these lorries bought new?

Yes.

What is going to happen to them afterwards?

They will be disposed of.

Do the lorries come back to the Union?

When they are no longer required, they will be disposed of, and the proceeds will go to the credit of this fund.

I think the House is thankful to the hon. the Minister for giving the information, but the settling of these people in this manner appears to me to be a confession of failure. The Dutch-speaking people have always been pioneers, and we should have left them in Portuguese country. They would have tamed it in time. The Minister has put them in a country which is only fit for a bushman or a baboon—a desert.

No.

The hon. member would not like to go and farm there; he has never grown a cabbage in his life. These settlers are going to cost, with free land, £1,500 per family. This settlement scheme is costing £500,000 for 335 families.

Three hundred and eighty-five.

Well, with free land, put it down at £1,400 per family. Would it not have been better to bring those people into the Free State and bought a whole district and settled them among our own people. For years these people are going to worry the Governments of the day. The Minister thinks the money will come back, but it will not. These unfortunate people have been put into a very bad position. The Government have done their best, I admit, but the South-West Government will have a large amount of trouble with these people, and they will come with petitions to this House. Only about thirty families have been settled, the majority of them at a place called Outjo, in tents around the water-hole there, and the others are ud on the river. It has cost the country £400.000 and they are not settled yet. I think the Government should take the matter into serious consideration before they go further.

I agree that the Government must help the people, but I believe it will cost a good deal of money. This is the first time I have agreed with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow).

Then I must be wrong.

I do not grudge the people this, but what becomes of our independence? Can we permit any nation to treat our people so, virtually to drive them out of the country, without the Government or Parliament protesting? Must we not insist that compensation be paid to the people for the development which they have effected in Angola? I hear that the farmers were used a great deal to fight the kaffirs, because the Portuguese were too weak. What compensation have the people received for all this work? I should very much like to know how the Government has protested in connection with the treatment of the people.

These people trekked from the Western Transvaal in 1874; I remember reading about it at the time. First they went to Grootfontein and then into Angola, where they settled. They had been very badly treated by the Portuguese, who refused to give them title to the land.

In a few instances the Portuguese did give them title.

If a farmer cannot get land, what can he farm?

If they were not our nationals we could not interfere.

They were Dutch.

But we had no right to protest.

With regard to this expenditure I think the Minister is depending too much on the officials of the South-West African Administration, who will not trouble themselves very much about our money being spent to the best advantage, more especially as the majority of the local people are against the scheme. There should be some means of checking the expenditure.

The hon. member will appreciate the difficulty. It takes some time to prepare the farms and to put down bore holes: originally it was thought that the people would come across, as we had farms ready for them, but instead of that they arrived all together. Eighty-three farms are ready and a number of people are on their way to them. As far as the rest are concerned, they will go to the farms as they are ready. As to the expenditure, we have not a department in the mandated territory and we can only rely on the protectorate authorities, who will naturally carry out our wishes as far as possible. These farmers will in time become very valuable to the economic life of the country. I am quite sure the farmer in South-West Africa will take an interest in the settlement. Our German friends are not very enthusiastic about the scheme, but the Union farmers in the mandated territory are.

No.

We must trust the Administrator and his executive to see that the money is spent to the best advantage.

I agree that it is our duty to help the unfortunate people, but when the Minister of Lands went to the Kunene to discuss the matter, I had a conversation with him a little while before, and he said that he was going to start negotiations with the Portuguese.

The people will not remain under any circumstances. They said that that they were going to trek in any case.

I am glad to hear that, but was there no chance of settling the matter in another way, because I understand that the Portuguese made it impossible for the people to remain there. In our towns and villages, however, the Portuguese have our markets in their hands, and to-day not a single farmer can send anything more to the Johannesburg and Pretoria markets because the Portuguese have taken the markets away. In Angola, however, they drive our people away, and the Government has taken no steps to point this out.

What do you suggest?

We had the upper hand but the Government made a treaty with the Portuguese. The people worked the ground, and now have to do without compensation but we allow the Portuguese to buy ground here and capture our markets. We can still also drive them out of the country. Why must we show friendship to a neighbouring nation if that nation does not show us any? I know that the Minister of Lands is not in favour of using force, but we have told him that he must rectify the matter with words, but that if anything else is necessary later on, we shall then help. I think that the Government was very negligent, and now we are landed with the people and have to spend more money. It is our duty now, but I am convinced that the settlement of the people in South-West is yet going to cost much more than £500,000. I know the world. If they get good years, they will perhaps do well, but this matter will still cost a good deal of money. It would perhaps have been better to bring the people to our own country where the rainfall is better. Stockfarming will never pay in South-West. In our own country it does not pay, and there the people will not make a success of it. If the land was suitable for sowing or ploughing it would be another matter. This is going to be a great burden and money will have to be voted for it every year.

I would like to ask what efforts were made by our Government to get recognition in Angola of the citizenship and rights of the Angola Boers. We have a community who have lived there, suffering all sorts of privations, for 50 years. Two generations have grown up knowing no other home or land, and yet apparently they were not receiving the recognition they should have received by the Portuguese Government as citizens and pioneers. What efforts were made by our Government to see that their work and services, were acceptable to the Portuguese Government in order to settle them in a fair and equable way? I feel a great deal of sympathy with these men and I do not grudge their being brought down to South West Africa. At the same time, I consider that what they have gone through and what their fathers went through to get there entitles them to moral support and more than moral support from the Government of this country. Certainly we should have done something to insist upon the Portuguese Government properly recognizing these people, who have done so much in pioneering work. I happened to be in the protectorate at the time, and I have never forgotten the incidents in the trek across the Kalahari Desert. They suffered awful privations and some lost their lives in crossing the desert, and now, after 50 years, holding a pioneering record in the civilization of that part of the country, they are brought back. Why? Because our Government did not insist upon the Portuguese Government doing something to recognize these people. For the first time in the history of the Boer race, they have had to retreat, to retire, because our Government, which claims sovereign rights under its new status, were unable to maintain the rights of these people in that country.

There is one fact which the hon. member and also the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) do not seem to appreciate. The fact is that these people were no longer Union nationals, they were Portuguese subjects. Surely hon. members do not expect us to go sabre-rattling and interfering with the domestic affairs of another Government because these people were not getting the rights to which the hon. member thinks they were entitled. It would have been interference with the subjects of another country. We had no locus standi. Most of them never had been Union nationals. When this thing became acute, the Angola people absolutely refused to remain there. They said: “Whether you want us in South West Africa or not, we are coming.” That is the position we found. It was altogether impossible for us to go and use threats to the Portuguese Government because they were not prepared to give these people title to the land.

They were not receiving treatment as citizens.

I do not think in Angola even people from Portugal can very easily get title to land. We know their land laws are not the same as ours, and I think these Dutch people expected they would get freehold title as they could in the Union. I do not know the full merits of the dispute which has been going on there. The hon. member will appreciate it was not a matter in which we could take up the strong stand which he evidently expected.

I am going to move—

It is an exceedingly bad principle indeed to allocate this money as a grant over which we should have no control whatever. If we have a definite object in view, we should exercise some control over the money. We were told by the Minister of Finance that the moment we pass this globular sum as a grant all control passes out of our hands and we shall have no right to ask what becomes of the money. When our provinces want money, we advance it as a loan and they have to acknowledge their obligation to repay it. Why cannot the Minister pursue that policy with the mandated territory of the South-West Africa protectorate? Why cannot he say: “These people are going to add to the population; if you are short of money, we will lend it, but it is to be a debt resting on the country.” If the question comes up in an acute form, as I anticipate it will, for Germany to claim a return of the country, we do not know what a Government so favourably disposed to do everything possible for Germany may do. They may even be in favour of giving back the mandate to administer that territory.

Oh, no; they will not go as far as that.

Another split in the South African party!

It is so unlike the careful and economic Minister of Finance to part with these huge sums, and as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has pointed out, it is only the beginning of a dole system with practically no end. If we lend this money the protectorate administration will still have the expenditure of it, but we may hold them responsible for the proper spending of that money for a defined purpose. We should treat these people on the same principle as our own Union provinces. We know the sentiments of the Germans of South-West Africa are against coming into the Union, more strongly so than that of our Government of remaining within the British empire. The Minister is in the unfortunate position of having to provide money and not knowing anything about its past and future disposal—a truly strange thing.

I cannot accept the amendment, for the hon. member moves an alteration of the destination of the vote.

May I submit before you decide. Mr. Chairman; I know I cannot change the destination of the vote and the amount to be voted, except to move a reduction, but I respectfully submit that to turn it into an advance instead of a grant is within the province of this House. If you decide against me, well and good, I do not want to call in Mr. Speaker as it is a small matter.

The difficulty in adopting the hon. member’s advice is simply this: for this particular kind of contract he is advocating, we want the consent of two parties—lender and borrower. You have the lender here, but you have not the borrower.

Not lender, but giver.

South-West Africa says: “Thank you for the advance; we do not want it.” They were asked by us to do this work, and they were not keen on receiving those people.

Why did you not bring them here?

That is a horse of another colour. We are finding difficulty in finding suitable land for our own landless people within the Union. If the hon. member will reflect only for a moment he will realize that.

I move—

Hon. members will see that we are asking for an additional amount of £775,730. That amount is required for railways alone. There are savings under certain heads to the extent of £5,493, but these cannot be used. The amount actually required is £770.237. The amount required ordinary working expenditure, is £635,007, of which net revenue amounts to £40,223. The excess is mainly due to the fact that the traffic conveyed is considerably in excess of the tonnage which was anticipated would be handled when we made the original estimates.

What is the increase in traffic?

I will give you that later on. I will now give a few figures in regard to the more important items. We are asking for an additional £247,701 for the maintenance of rolling stock. This amount is almost entirely due in respect of material and arises from a very material increase in locomotives and wagons to meet the demands of traffic. For running expenses the figure is £256,112, and traffic expenses amount to £131,694. It is estimated that we shall have completed 4,152,149 extra engine miles to the end of March this year. This is due to the increase of traffic. For the first nine months we carried 800,000 tons over and above the estimated amount of traffic. That represents an increase of 5 per cent, over the expenditure approved by Parliament, whereas the extra mileage is equal to an increase of 6.9 per cent.

What was the figure last year?

I cannot give you that off-hand. The remarks in regard to running expenses also apply with regard to traffic expenses. I want to say a word in regard to item No. 6—Betterment Fund. Hon. members will remember that we contributed £250,000 towards this fund, but we find that this amount is insufficient, and it is necessary to provide an additional £100,000. For next year we shall again have to increase the amount. I intend to maintain the present basis, but if it is to be maintained we shall have to watch the position very closely. We may have a further increase unless we change the basis, and that would be undesirable. In regard to the loan estimates, hon. members will see that we made provision last year for an amount of £6.350.000 for capital expenditure. We are now asking for an additional £953.438. for which the construction of railways is responsible for £5.484; rolling stock, £665,326: and working capital, £282.628. There are savings amounting to £294,003. making the revised estimate this year of £7.009.435. There are savings under different headings, as I have said, of £294.003, and there is also available £100.000 from the betterment fund. I now come to the larger amount of £665,326, for rolling stock, which is required on account of the heavy increase in traffic, and to enable us to carry all the traffic which offers during the peak period. I have come to the conclusion that it is a mistake for us to provide rolling stock only to deal with our normal traffic, because in actual experience we have found that some interests must suffer when the peak period comes, and I regret to say that the coal interests have been the chief sufferers in that regard. After very full consideration of the whole position I have come to the conclusion that it is not fair to ask any interest in South Africa to suffer at these peak periods of traffic, and our policy is to purchase sufficient rolling stock to deal with traffic at its peak. We have therefore purchased (additional rolling stock during the year, and that is responsible for the amount which I have given. I do not propose to deal with the general financial position now except to say that there is a surplus of £282,000 up to the end of December. I hope next week to give the House further figures as to the whole year’s working. I have no reason to think that our results for the whole of the year will not be very satisfactory. Our gross revenue has increased by £814,360 for the first nine months, and our expenditure by £566,047, so that hon. members will see that we are only spending 13s. 11d. to earn one sovereign. I am sure that members on all sides of the House will be pleased to hear that it is no longer costing us more than a sovereign to earn a sovereign, and that it costs us only 13s. 11d. Very great credit is due to the new general manager, Mr. More, for the manner in which he has tackled the whole question. The reorganization which has taken place is working excellently. Responsibility has been placed on the system managers, and the change that was made in regard to the control of finance, placing both the financial and accounting side under one officer, has also worked very well, and is to be made a permanent feature. The cost per engine mile has fallen by 3.15d. per engine mile. I think I have said enough to show the reason why we are asking for these additional amounts.

seconded the motion.

I should like to congratulate the Minister, not so much on what we find in the additional estimate as on what he has just told us. The extra vote asked for this evening is one and three quarter millions. The original estimate for revenue service was twenty-nine millions odd, and the revised estimate is thirty millions odd. The original estimate for capital and betterment was six millions odd, and the revised estimate is over seven millions. Therefore we are asked for an additional one and three-quarter millions this year. When we turn to the items the Minister will agree that we want further information. Take the first Head No. 3, an additional amount of £247,731 is asked for, and almost all the money is to be spent on material. We have the Minister’s note showing that this arises from the continued and unexpected increase in the number of locomotives and waggons placed in service to meet the heavy demands of traffic, and that the amount of repair work is in excess of that anticipated when framing the main estimates, due to the arrival of new stock and the release of more stock from service for repairs. I want to ask the Minister, if the excess amount required is for repair work of that nature how is it he has not made due provision for any increase of wages. Extra repairs cannot be done without extra labour unless the Administration has in the past been greatly overstaffed. I think that requires some explanation. For running expenses there is an additional amount of £256,112 asked for. This is required to meet the excess cost involved in an additional 4,152,149 train and engine miles as compared with the additional estimate. When the original estimate for 1928-’29 was submitted the comparison given was—estimate for 1927-’28, £4,844,421: for 1928-’29, £5,099,320; an increase of £254,899, and the explanation given for this increase was that it was required to meet the cost of additional train and engine miles amounting to 2,609,648. Thus we have the following comparison: Original estimate of train and engine miles, 2,609,648 for the additional expenditure of £254,899. The present estimate of 4,152,149 additional train and engine miles for an additional expenditure of £256,112, a difference of £1,213 for an additional one and a half million train and engine miles. That is to say the Administration is now prepared to run an increased train and engine mileage of over one-and-a-half million without any corresponding increase in expenditure. This is a great advance in the right direction and it seems a pity that it has taken the Minister nearly five years to obtain this improved position. The Minister has arrived at the position we have long advocated, namely, that an increase in mileage should not show a percentage increase in working costs. But I have also to utter a word of criticism. In the original estimates, there is an increase of £140,116 for traffic expenses. In the estimates now before us £131,694 are required for goods and passenger traffic, the conveyance of which necessitates 6.9 per cent, more train miles. In the original estimate for 1928-’29 for an increase in goods and passenger traffic equal to 4.56 the increased expenditure asked to be voted was £50,642. In the same proportion the additional amount required should be not £131,694 but £76,659, or £55,065 less than the sum asked for. I now wish to refer to Head No. 7, Capital and Betterment. The Minister in his notes states that owing to the increased activities of the Administration due to the opening of new lines, new road motor services and general expansion of traffic, it is necessary to carry larger stocks of permanent way material and general stores, etc. According to the Auditor-General’s report, sleepers stood at £51,000 and road motor services £278,000. Comparing the note with the general manager’s remarks on page 59 as quoted in the Auditor-General’s report, the large increase of stock was primarily due to the coal strike in Great Britain. We find that the value of general stores has increased from £1.800,000 to £3,600,000, an increase of almost 100 per cent. The general manager in his report states that the coal strike in Great Britain was the prime factor in the large increase in the size of the stocks. He gives the reason here as the coal strike in Great Britain and there seems some difference between the Minister’s note and the general manager’s report. If the Minister would give us full information we should know exactly where we were. It seems to me the railways are paying an un-necessarily high sum to the High Commissioner. We are purchasing to a large extent locally. The expenses are higher because we are employing agents, who must get a profit. The percentage has increased from 37 to 81 in regard to purchases in South Africa and purchases through the High Commissioner have gone down from 63 to 19 per cent, and yet we pay the High Commissioner to-day more than we paid him before. It seems to me it is time the Railway Department paid less as their share of the expenses through the High Commissioner’s office. The High Commissioner is doing practically nothing for us in the way of purchasing, and why should that heavy cost continue as a burden on the railways? Then under Head 18 there is £100,000 which, I take it, is to replace the £52,000 odd charged to Betterment Fund in 1928 to write off the cost of uplifting the M’tuba-tuba line. Although the Betterment Fund for ordinary purposes was stated by the Auditor-General to be inadequate, we find that this amount was written off out of the Betterment Fund. It seems to be a very strange proceeding. I think we ought to know from the Minister why this should be charged to that fund which was established to replace or to improve. It seems a peculiar position to me, and what seems to me more peculiar is that when the Minister was about to depart for Europe last year, he anticipated a deficit on railway working, and suddenly we found there was a surplus of £47,000 odd. Now the £52.000 which should have been paid out of revenue was paid out of Betterment Fund, and naturally the finances of the railways improved to that extent. It seems to me that instead of a £47,000 surplus the Minister’s forecast before he left for Europe when he anticipated a deficit of something like £5,000 was far more correct. If you use this amount you get a deficit as near as possible to the Minister’s forecast as one could wish. I think the Minister should tell us very clearly why this amount was used in this way. The Minister cannot expect us to accept that the finances are sound if these funds are used as this one is. I hope the Minister’s present anticipation of a surplus is not based on the same lines.

That is actual.

I do not know whether he has had good fortune this year.

Good management.

I quite believe that. The management is so good that the Minister’s figure of an anticipated deficit was by magic changed to a surplus.

In reference to the cost of running the London office, I would like to ask the Minister why does he purchase such a tremendous amount locally and pay more for it?

To encourage production in South Africa.

And pay more for your stuff. It has to be found somewhere. I thought the railways were to be managed on business lines?

These are our best customers.

The department ought to buy in the best market and in the best way possible. The Minister is now asking for £770,000, bringing the total to £11,000,000. Where are you going to get the money from? You have to find in the next three months a sum of £487,000. Does my friend think he is going to get that amount in January, February and March? You are asking us to grant £770,000, and yet you do not tell us where you are going to get this money from.

January will give us a surplus of at least £75,000.

There is one other point. The Minister has taken a new departure in providing rolling stock during the peak period. I do not object to his trying the experiment, but I hope he will watch it very closely.

I understand that under the rules we cannot raise matters of policy, but I would like to ask the Minister whether these increased amounts have anything to do with the salaries of drivers and firemen, and whether anything is allowed for the establishing of an eight hour day on the railways. I do not want to go into the merits of the case now. In regard to goods labourers and porters, is there any provision made so that these men may receive a living wage. The ordinary labourer is unable to live to-day on the wages he is receiving In regard to the £100,000 for shops, materials, etc., I should like to know whether any portion of that amount is for wages and for restoring the rates of pay. I would also like some information on the question of the long service increment. I would like to call the attention of the Minister also to the state of affairs in Durban in connection with the goods department, where there is what is known as “the slave market”. You have men there who have been employed for seven years, and have never had a chance of becoming permanent or even temporary. They are still casual.

We had assurances that, as far as possible, all our rolling-stock would he built in our own workshops. Has that intention been carried out? In one workshop I visited at one time in the construction of coaches they were almost marking time. It was pointed out to me that arrangements for continuous work were not as satisfactory as they might be. One recent rumour is that in consequence of this policy being rather intermittent, some of the workmen were not being employed full-time. We are importing a great many new trucks, particularly for the coal traffic. Something might be done with regard to the accumulation and detention of coal trucks at the ports. Possibly producers are using trucks for storing purposes, as speculators in maize are doing with the elevators. If so the practice could be checked by increased charges.