House of Assembly: Vol12 - FRIDAY 8 MARCH 1929
asked the Prime Minister:
- (1) What was the procedure which was followed to enable South Africa to be one of the signatories to the Kellogg treaty;
- (2) whether there was any consultation between England and the dominions; and
- (3) whether the procedure followed was fully in accordance with the autonomous international status of South Africa?
- (1) The Union Government received an invitation from the United States Government to become a signatory to the treaty in question. This invitation was accepted by the Union Government and full powers were conferred on Mr. J. S. Smit by his Majesty the King to sign the treaty for the Union.
- (2) Yes.
- (3) Yes, in all respects.
asked the Minister of Agriculture:
- (1) How many European youths are at present employed as farm labourers at the Agricultural School at Glen;
- (2) what wages and allowances do they receive and what privileges have they;
- (3) whether the employment of these youths has proved a success; and
- (4) whether the other agricultural schools also employ such youths; if so, which schools, and how many youths does each school employ?
- (1) 23.
- (2) £1 per month for the first year; £1 5s. per month for the second year, half whereof being deposited monthly at the Post Office Savings Bank; free quarters, food and suitable clothing for working in; free railway transport on entering apprenticeship and once a year to visit parents; free medical attendance: 12 days’ leave per annum; they enjoy practical experience and some education in theory; after completion of course, certificate will be issued and apprentices assisted in obtaining situations.
- (3) Not as successful as anticipated, a large percentage of the youths proving unreliable, but with a better selection there is no reason why the scheme should not prove a success. This point has received attention.
- (4) No, the apprenticeship system being upon its trial it has not yet been extended to other schools. This will depend upon results. Juvenile white labour is, however, employed to a certain extent at other schools, for example, at Potchefstroom 26 youths and at Grootfontein School of Agriculture a few white youths are employed.
Are the 12 days’ leave with pay?
Yes.
asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:
- (1) Whether the post of inspector of tickets for the Orange Free State is of a permanent nature or are ticket-examiners from time to time appointed to the post on a relieving system; if the latter,
- (2) whether the senior ticket-examiners have equal chances to be appointed as such; if so, for what length of time are they so appointed; and
- (3) how long has the present occupant of the post of acting inspector of tickets been holding the appointment?
- (1) The establishment provides for one permanent official. An additional appointment is made as required, in a temporary acting capacity, from the ranks of ticket examiners.
- (2) Claims of all examiners are considered in making acting appointments as ticket inspectors. The duration of the acting appointment is dependent upon the exigencies of the service, or until it is necessary to consider the permanent filling of the position.
- (3) Since October, 1927. Recently the appointment of an additional ticket inspector was authorized and the filling of this position is now receiving attention.
asked the Acting Minister of Justice:
- (1) Whether an European farmer was charged at Helpmekaar, Natal, in 1927 or 1928 with rape of a native woman and attempted murder; and, if so,
- (2) whether the prosecution was withdrawn, and, if so, upon whose instructions and upon what grounds?
I referred this question to the Attorney-General of Natal who has telegraphed to me as follows: Your 147 presumably refers to the case of Rex versus Louis du Bois, a European farmer of Vergelegen, District Helpmekaar, who was charged on the 19th of December, 1927, with rape or alternatively with a contravention of section 1 of Act No. 5 of 1927 in respect of a native woman. A preparatory examination was held and the accused was committed for trial on the 24th of January, 1928. I declined to prosecute after further enquiry on the 14th February, 1928, being of opinion that the evidence was insufficient to warrant placing the accused upon his trial. I know of no case from Helpmekaar of rape and attempted murder by a European on a native woman.
asked the Minister of the Interior:
- (1) Whether he has received representations urging him to take steps to remove the disenfranchisement penalty placed upon certain persons as punishment for their activities in the labour cause in the 1922 strike; and
- (2) whether he is prepared to take such steps, and, if not, why not?
- (1) Yes.
- (2) The matter is under consideration.
asked the Minister of Lands:
- (1) To whom the farm Gaiclip, in the South-West Protectorate, belongs;
- (2) whether the south boundary of this farm stops at high water mark of the Orange River; if so,
- (3) whether the land between high water mark and the Orange River belongs to the Union Government; and, if so,
- (4) what does the Lands Department propose doing with the land lying below high water mark?
- (1) Arnold Friedrich Weiss.
- (2) Yes, the boundary is high water mark during normal summer floods. I may add that the question of the definition of the whole boundary between the Union and South-West Africa is receiving my attention.
- (3) Yes.
- (4) The land below high water mark, as described in (2), was leased on a temporary basis to various applicants. Difficulties arose, however, as some of the lessees contended that the land leased to them includes certain irrigable lands which a local investigation by the Surveyors-General of the Cape and South-West Africa disclosed as falling inside the boundaries of the farm Gaiclip. These lessees have been informed that, if they are not satisfied with the lands leased to them, I am prepared to cancel their leases as from the date of the commencement thereof.
How can the irrigable land form a portion of the farm?
I have explained that these lessees claimed certain land which they claimed belonged to the Union, but which, on inspection, proved to belong to the farm.
I can only express the hope that a decision will not be arrived at in a great hurry.
asked the Acting Minister of Justice:
- (1) Whether in a prosecution during November last in the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg, in which the question arose as to the accused’s colour, viz., whether he was a European or a native, the defending attorney stated “that even among South African law-givers and members of Parliament, he (the attorney) had not the faintest doubt, by going far back enough into their ancestry, just as much or just as little coloured blood would be found in their veins as runs in the veins of the accused”;
- (2) whether a police officer, Sergeant Wagenaar, addressed the magistrate, saying he hoped that the magistrate had noted the statement, adding “I am going to put in an official report about his remarks”;
- (3) whether such report has reached the Minister; and, if so,
- (4) whether any disciplinary action, and, if so, what action, has been taken in respect of the sergeant’s conduct?
- (1) and (2) Yes.
- (3) No, the matter was not officially reported to the Minister.
- (4) Sergeant Wagenaar was tried on a charge of contempt of court in contravention of section 103 (1) of Act No. 32 of 1917, but was discharged. No disciplinary action was taken except that Sergeant Wagenaar was warned that his conduct was ill-advised.
asked the Minister of Agriculture:
- (1) Whether he is aware that in a contribution to an agricultural journal in January last, Mr. P. Toens, lecturer in dairying at the School of Agriculture, Glen, made use of the following words: “There is also the moral aspect of overstocking. How can we reconcile with our Christian teachings the fact that animals sometimes perish through want of food when their owners could have prevented their suffering?”
- (2) whether he is aware that conduct such as is described by Mr. Toens constitutes neglect and cruelty and falls within the provisions of the Act for the prevention of cruelty to animals; and
- (3) whether the Minister will take steps to warn delinquents accordingly?
- (1) I have not seen the statement referred to but I may say that the department is continually pointing out the disadvantages of overstocking.
- (2) What amounts to overstocking and whether it can be regarded as a contravention of the provisions of the Act for the prevention of cruelty to animals would obviously be a matter of opinion.
- (3) Any specific cases of cruelty to animals should be brought to the notice of the police.
asked the Acting Minister of Justice:
- (1) Whether his department towards the end of last year issued a circular requesting magistrates to deal leniently in open court with police witnesses whose evidence might seem to merit comment: if so,
- (2) why such circular was issued, and whether such circular does not constitute an interference with the freedom of a judicial authority; and
- (3) whether he will table a copy of such a circular, if issued?
- (1) No such circular has at any time been issued by the department.
- (2) and (3) Fall away.
Was it not that the circular was issued by the chief magistrate of Johannesburg?
I firn informed that that is so.
asked the Minister of Labour:
- (1) Whether the Wage Board has held an investigation as to wage conditions for unskilled workers in Bloemfontein district;
- (2) whether the board made representations to the Minister as a result of that investigation, and, if so, what were the recommendations;
- (3) whether the Minister made any determination as a result of such recommendations, and, if so, what determination; and
- (4) whether it is proposed to extend such determination to other areas?
- (1) Yes.
- (2) and (3) The Wage Board made certain recommendations to me and a wage determination in accordance with such recommendations was made with effect from 31st December, 1928. The hon. member will find full particulars in the reports and recommendations of the Wage Board that were laid on the Table on 28th January, 1929.
- (4) This determination is limited to an area within a fifteen miles’ radius of the general post office, Bloemfontein, in accordance with the reference issued to the Wage Board and cannot be extended to any other area.
asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:
- (1) Whether he intends during the present year to make a start with the erection of the promised station at Albertinia; and, if not,
- (2) when will the work be commenced, seeing that the matter is urgent because of the fact that motor lorries are securing a large proportion of the traffic on account of the distance of the station and shopkeepers have to pay 3d. per hundred pounds for such conveyance?
The Administration has given careful and sympathetic consideration to the matter. In view, however, of the pressing claims of works of a more urgent nature, I am afraid it will not be possible to make provision in this year’s Capital and Betterment Estimates for the work at Albertinia.
asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:
- (1) How many candidates employed by the South African Railways and Harbours sat for the last Afrikaans examination held in Natal in August, 1928;
- (2) how many candidates were successful in passing that examination;
- (3) of the number of successful candidates, how many were taught by departmental teachers paid by the Administration and serving under the organization presided over by Mrs. Jansen;
- (4) how many successful candidates received tuition from other sources; and
- (5) what are the names of the teachers employed in the tuition of candidates mentioned in (3), in what areas are they serving, and what salary is paid in each case?
- (1) 193.
- (2) 131.
- (3) 36 students from classes organized departmentally sat for the examination, of whom 31 were successful. This number includes 22 taught by Mr. Groenewald, Durban, of whom 20 succeeded in passing the test.
- (4) 157 candidates who received tuition from other sources sat for the Afrikaans examination and of this number 100 were successful.
- (5) There are three department ally paid teachers in Natal who are conducting Afrikaans classes, namely, M. de Beer Wiid, Maritzburg; G E. Bruwer, Estcourt; H. J. Lowrens, Newcastle-Dundee-Glencoe. The three teachers mentioned above are also conducting continuation classes for the tuition of European labourers in subjects up to and including standard 6. The organization also provides for other continuation classes controlled by the following teachers in the areas named, viz.: H. C. du Toit, Thornybush-Kettlefontein; H. J. Dreyer, Ladysmith; J. Malan, Vryheid-Zuinguin. A continuation class has also been established under the aegis of the department at Greytown, but this class is controlled by local teachers who are not on the staff of the Administration. The teachers of the Afrikaans classes and those in charge of the continuation classes for European labourers are in receipt of a salary of £310 per annum, except Mr. de Beer Wiid, who is in receipt of £300 per annum.
Do I understand that excluding the students who are taught by Mr. Groenewald, there were eleven successful students?
The facts speak for themselves.
I understand that there were 22 out of the 31 passes credited to the organization were taught by Mr. Groenewald, who is a private teacher not paid by the Administration? Is that so?
I have already replied that the facts speak for themselves; the hon. member can draw his Own conclusions.
asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:
- (1) How many journeys did Mrs. Jansen find it necessary to make in connection with the organization of the Afrikaans classes during 1928, and to what areas did she travel;
- (2) what travelling or subsistence allowance did she receive in respect of such journeys, and at what rate per diem was such allowance paid;
- (3) upon what date will her free pass over the Natal section of the South African Railways expire; and
- (4) why was Mrs. Jansen granted a free pass, and at whose instance?
- (1) Ten trips on organization work, visiting Durban, Johannesburg, Greytown. Ladysmith, Dundee, Glencoe, Dannhauser, Tayside and probably other centres in Natal en route, of which no details are available.
- (2) £33 0s. 0d. It was originally agreed that the rate of expenses should be £2 2s. 0d. per diem, but this was reduced in August, 1928, to £1 0s. 0d. per diem at Mrs. Jansen’s own request.
- (3) 31st December, 1929.
- (4) Mrs. Jansen was granted a pass in order to organize the Afrikaans classes in Natal for the benefit of railway servants who were unable to obtain suitable tuition otherwise in connection with the requirements of Section 8 of the Railways and Harbours Service Act (1925).
The work undertaken in Natal by Mrs. Jansen also included the organization of continuation classes at outlying centres with the object of improving the educational qualifications of European labourers and giving them greater opportunities for promotion.
The pass was issued at the instance of the Administration.
Will the Minister say whether he has considered the want of economy in this case, in relation to the general manager’s circular dealing with economy?
Yes, certainly. I believe the action of the Administration in the interest of unilingual servants of the Administration and European labourers is perfectly justified.
asked the Minister of Finance:
- (1) Whether he is aware that the small holders at Putfontein and Edenvale, near Benoni, have been informed by the Receiver of Revenue that they must take out a fresh produce dealers’ licence under item 10 of the First Schedule to Act No. 32 of 1925 to sell their own produce on their own farms; and
- (2) whether he will take steps to prevent such licences being insisted upon?
- (1) Licences as fresh produce dealers are only being required from the small holders in question when they have hired a fixed place either in the market or elsewhere from which they sell by retail. It is not required when the sales are effected on the plots themselves.
- (2) As in selling from a fixed place within the town such producers enter into competition with other fresh produce dealers and it is not practicable for the licensing authority to ascertain whether the produce exposed for sale is solely the produce of the seller, it is not considered that the law calls for any change in this respect.
asked the Minister of Finance:
- (1) On what date will Mr. J. de Villiers Roos, Controller and Auditor-General, reach the age of retirement; and
- (2) whether the Government will introduce a motion for the extension of his service for a further period, and, if not, why not?
- (1) 24th November, 1929.
- (2) It is not intended to introduce a motion for the extension of Mr. Roos’ service for the reason that he does not wish his service to be extended. Moreover, the Government considers that the policy of retirement at age 60, which is applied to the public service and the railways and harbours service, should be applied to officers outside those services wherever practicable.
Would the Government approach the Auditor-General with a view to his agreeing to continue his service, in view of the great value of his work to the Union?
Mr. Roos has given the information I communicated to the House.
asked the Minister of Native Affairs:
- (1) What is the size of each province of the Union;
- (2) what is the number of natives in each province;
- (3) what is the size of the native locations and reserves and other lands set aside by law for the occupation of natives in each province other than land owned by natives; and
- (4) what percentage of land, including the scheduled areas, Crown land and land privately owned in each province, is occupied by natives?
- (1) Cape, 276,966 square miles; Natal, 35,284 square miles; Transvaal, 110,450 square miles; Orange Free State, 50,389 square miles.
- (2) Cape, 1,780,000 approximately; Natal, 1,280,000 approximately; Transvaal, 1,700,000 approximately; Orange Free State, 490,000 approximately.
- (3) Cape. 6,000,000 morgen approximately; Natal, 2,997.000 morgen approximately; Transvaal, 905,000 morgen approximately; Orange Free State, 74,290 morgen approximately.
The figure furnished above in respect of the Cape Province includes certain locations which were set aside as Crown native locations, but have since been sub-divided and granted in individual tenure to the inhabitants thereof. - (4) It is not possible to furnish even approximately the information desired under this head embracing as it does factors which are constantly changing. It will readily be appreciated, for instance, that the extent of land privately owned by Europeans and occupied by natives may vary considerably from month to month.
Do the figures given by the Minister in Section 2 of the reply include those from other provinces who happen to be registered at the time?
T take it that is the case. If it were not so, the number of natives in the Free State, instead of being 190,000, would not be 100,000.
asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is a fact that j mealies in passing through the grain elevators at Durban and Cane Town are very much broken: and if so, whether he has taken steps to prevent this occurring in future?
Representations have been made concerning flat white mealies required for a specialized industrial process, this grade being particularly susceptible to breakage owing to its brittle nature. For some time past, experiments have been conducted with a view to eliminating breakage as far as possible, and the matter is still engaging the close attention of the Administration. The action already taken should minimize the cause for representation.
Has the Minister considered revising the whole policy of the export of grain in view of the drought and the great losses of stock? I think the Minister—
The hon. member is making a speech.
Has the Minister considered providing the coast elevators with an intake?
The question raises a matter of policy, which, I think, should be discussed in the House, and not disposed of in the form of a question.
Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an interview on the matter with Mr. McKean?
Yes. Mr. McKean will, I understand, give another interview, to which I would refer the hon. member.
asked the Acting Minister of Justice:
- (1) Whether he is aware that in various cases decided in South Africa in actions for dissolution of the marriage tie on the ground of malicious desertion, judges have expressed, strong opinions that the legislature should fix a minimum period which must elapse after desertion before a decree of divorce can be obtained; and
- (2) whether he is aware that, in a recent case which came before the Supreme Court of the Transvaal. Mr. Justice Feetham expressed similar strong opinions as regards “the very unsatisfactory character of the present law which makes it so easy for a partner to obtain a quick release from the marriage bond on the ground of malicious desertion, which inevitably encourages people to enter into marriages light-heartedly and on quite inadequate grounds,” and that in the learned judge’s opinion the effect of the present law must inevitably sap the very foundations of family life in this country;
- (3) whether the Minister, if he agrees, will introduce legislation to remedy the alleged defect in the present law?
- (1) Yes.
- (2) Yes.
- (3) The hon. member should address this question to the Minister of the Interior.
Is the Minister prepared to consider the question of having a King’s proctor appointed in South Africa?
The hon. member must give notice of that question.
asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:
- (1) What was the nature of the letter addressed to the Minister by the late chief mechanical engineer on the 20th February, 1929; and
- (2) whether the Minister will lay a copy of the letter upon the Table?
I would refer the hon. member to the reply given to the hon. member for Ladybrand on the 1st instant. As stated therein, it is not proposed to lay upon the Table the reports of the special committee and subsequent correspondence which includes the letter referred to. Any member, however, who wishes to do so may peruse them at my office.
Will the Minister object to the publication of Col. Collins’ letter in view of the fact that the Minister’s considered statement on the subject has been published?
There is a difficulty, because we should have to publish the whole of the report. The hon. member, having access to the papers, will be able to raise the matter in the House if he wishes to do so.
Will the Minister object to a copy of Col. Collins’ letter being handed to the press, in order that his side of the case may be heard?
There will be an opportunity of discussing the matter in the House.
The MINISTER OF MINES AND INDUSTRIES replied to Question XVIII, by Mr. Nicholls, standing over from 12th February.
How many favoured-nation treaties have been entered into by Germany with other countries?
The latest available official information, dated 11th May, 1928, shows that, with the following countries, Germany has entered into treaties providing for treaty tariff and most-favoured-nation treatment: Denmark, Italy, Jugo-Slavia, Netherlands and Colonies, Norway, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey.
Treaties entered into with the following countries provide for most-favoured-nation treatment: Argentine, Ethiopia, British dominions, except Canada and Australia (commerce and shipping treaty of 2nd December, 1924), Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, France, Great Britain, Japan, Latvia, Mandated Territories (by treaty of Versailles), Morocco Spanish and French, Nicaragua, Palestine, Panama, Persia, Russia, Salvador, Venezuela, United States of America.
Apart from the foregoing there are countries to which most-favoured-nation treatment is mutually accorded by agreement, by exchange of letters, or by local order, as follows: Afghanistan, Egypt, Albania, Belgium and Congo, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, China, Costa Rica, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, Honduras, Siam, Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, Uruguay, Paraguay.
Is it not a fact that under the most-favoured-nation treatment extended by Germany to South Africa, similar treatment must simultaneously be extended to all those countries mentioned by the Minister?
That is a matter for argument.
It is not a matter of argument; it is a matter of fact.
That is an inference the hon. member can draw for himself.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS replied to Question No. XII, by Mr. Marwick, standing over from 5th March.
- (1) How many candidates employed by the South African Railways and Harbours sat for the last Afrikaans examination held in Natal in August, 1928;
- (2) how many candidates were successful in passing that examination;
- (3) of the number of successful candidates, how many were taught by departmental teachers paid by the Administration and serving under the organization presided over by Mrs. Jansen;
- (4) how many successful candidates received tuition from other sources;
- (5) what are the names of the teachers employed in the tuition of candidates mentioned in (3), and in what areas are they serving;
- (6) how many journeys did Mrs. Jansen find it necessary to make in connection with the organization of the Afrikaans classes during 1928, and to what areas did she travel;
- (7) what travelling or subsistence allowance did she receive in respect of such journeys, and at what rate per diem was such allowance paid; and
- (8) upon what date will her free pass over the Natal section of the South African Railways expire?
I would refer the hon. member to the replies given to-day to Question No. XII standing in the name of Mr. Henderson, and Question No. XIII standing in his own name.
The ACTING MINISTER OF JUSTICE replied to Question No. XXV, by Mr. W. B. de Villiers, standing over from 1st March.
- (1) What steps have been taken, in the event of the police requiring horses, to buy such horses direct from farmers;
- (2) how many horses were bought direct from farmers in 1928 and how many, in the same year, from speculators;
- (3) how many horses belonging to farmers in the different parts of Griqualand West were bought from speculators in 1928;
- (4) what steps are taken to inform farmers whenever the police intend to buy horses;
- (5) who are employed to buy horses for the police; and
- (6) by whom are these horses approved?
- (1) and (4) Whenever horses are required, the deputy commissioners are instructed to endeavour, by advertisement or otherwise, to arrange for farmers who have animals for sale to bring them in to convenient centres for inspection. Farmers are given every opportunity and inducement to offer their animals for sale, but naturally only the most suitable horses for police purposes are purchased.
- (2) 130 horses were purchased from farmers during 1928. There were 356 further animals purchased, but it is not possible to say whether the sellers were speculators.
- (3) 419 animals were purchased in Griqualand West during 1928, of which 83 were bought from known farmers. It is impossible to say whether the other sellers were speculators.
- (5) Boards are appointed by the commissioner consisting, when possible, of the local deputy commissioner or deputy commissioner headquarters and the police or a Government veterinary surgeon, who closely inspect all horses offered for sale.
- (6) The horses are approved for purchase by this board. To show what little idea of the stamp of horse required for police purposes is held by farmers generally and the lack of interest shown, I may add that after advertisements in the “Volksblad” and “Diamond Fields Advertiser,” 25 horses were brought into Kimberley for inspection between the 27th and 30th August last, and that only one was fit for purchase. Similarly of 112 horses belonging to farmers inspected at Koopmansfontein and Vryburg on the 4th, 5th and 7th of October, it was only possible to purchase six. Suitable horses are so scarce, that the cost of sending a purchasing board out to tour the districts is prohibitive compared with the number of suitable horses obtained. Arrangements have, however, been made for an extended canvass of some districts of the Transvaal and Orange Free State during April and May next with the object of obtaining horses direct from farmers.
Leave was granted to the Minister of Finance to introduce the Appropriation (Part) Bill.
Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 14th March.
Leave was granted to the Minister of Railways and Harbours to introduce the Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Bill.
Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 15th March.
First Order read: Second reading, Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation (1928-’29) Bill.
I move—
Agreed to.
Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.
House in Committee:
Clauses, schedules and title put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Bill reported without amendment.
I move, as an unopposed motion—
seconded.
I am not quite clear whether I should be in order at this stage in referring to the report of the departmental committee which determined the responsibility for the ordering of certain engines from Germany, and the responsibility for receiving those engines and putting them into traffic on arrival in this country.
That depends upon whether there is an item in the additional estimates for the purchase of the engines.
There are items on the additional estimates providing for the purchase of engines. Will the Minister indicate whether these engines are included in the amount set down?
I cannot say definitely whether the money for these engines is included. I do not think it is, but I have no objection to the hon. member discussing the matter.
The hon. member may proceed.
I think I can best bring before the House a side of the question that has not been heard by reading a letter which was addressed by the late chief mechanical engineer to the Minister, dated 20th February, 1929—
Front Engine. |
||||||
Engine 2320. |
Engine 2321. |
|||||
Tons. |
Cwts. |
Qrs. |
Tons. |
Cwts. |
Qrs. |
|
Leading bogie |
11 |
10 |
3 |
10 |
17 |
1 |
Trailing bogie |
11 |
10 |
3 |
11 |
13 |
— |
Leading coupled |
19 |
11 |
1 |
20 |
19 |
3 |
Driving coupled |
19 |
11 |
— |
18 |
18 |
3 |
Trailing coupled |
17 |
18 |
— |
17 |
16 |
— |
Carrier |
14 |
1 |
2 |
12 |
9 |
1 |
Back Engine. |
||||||
Carrier |
14 |
7 |
1 |
14 |
14 |
1 |
Leading coupled |
21 |
5 |
— |
19 |
7 |
2 |
Driving coupled |
21 |
4 |
— |
19 |
19 |
1 |
Trailing coupled |
19 |
5 |
1 |
19 |
10 |
— |
Leading bogie |
10 |
10 |
2 |
11 |
8 |
I |
Trailing bogie |
10 |
6 |
2 |
11 |
15 |
2 |
Total … |
191 |
1 |
3 |
189 |
8 |
3 |
Front Engine. |
|||
Tons. |
Cwts. |
Qrs |
|
Leading bogie |
8 |
— |
1 |
Trailing bogie |
8 |
3 |
1 |
Leading coupled |
13 |
16 |
2 |
Driving coupled |
13 |
13 |
2 |
Trailing coupled |
13 |
4 |
3 |
Carrier |
9 |
13 |
— |
Back Engine. |
|||
Carrier |
8 |
9 |
1 |
Leading coupled |
13 |
9 |
3 |
Driving coupled |
14 |
13 |
1 |
Trailing coupled |
14 |
18 |
— |
Leading bogie |
8 |
11 |
1 |
Trailing bogie |
8 |
17 |
— |
Total |
135 |
9 |
3 |
I did not wish to detain the House, but the reading of the letter was rendered necessary because of the unwillingness of the Minister to send this document to the press.
T said from the very outset that members could see the letter written by Col. Collins to me, and as a matter of fact the hon. member has read that letter from the original file in my office, so he has been placed in possession of all the facts.
The public has not.
I have no objection to the hon. member reading the letter so that it may be published, but I put this to him and to the House. Unless he attacks the bona tides of the committee of senior officers appointed by the Administration, what does this statement really amount to?
I am not attacking anybody.
Then let me put the facts to him. The assistant general manager, the technical chief civil engineer, and the chief accountant were asked to constitute themselves into a committee in order to deal with the whole position. They deliberated first while Col. Collins was on leave in Europe. They brought out a report in which they came to certain conclusions. As Col. Collins had not had an opportunity of hearing the witnesses and of placing his case personally before the committee, I asked them to delay issuing the final report until such time as he had that opportunity. When he returned the committee gave him every opportunity of seeing the evidence which had been recorded and the papers and documents placed before them and every opportunity of stating his case in person. They also gave him the opportunity of calling witnesses as he thought fit, and after the very fullest consideration they came to the conclusions which I have communicated to the House. I thereupon asked Col. Collins to see me and I put the whole position to him in regard to the finding of this committee and I asked him whether, in view of the fact that a committee of senior officers—who, I believe, were not only competent but thoroughly impartial— had come to the conclusions which they had, he did not consider it was in his own interests that he should ask for his retirement, and I indicated to him that if he did that I would agree to add the years of service which would give him the full pension which he would be entitled to when he reached the age of 60. If Col. Collins adduces anything fresh in that letter, surely it was his duty to have placed it before the committee. Personally, I believe all the facts adduced by him in that letter were placed before the committee. The committee having duly deliberated and after the most careful consideration having come to those conclusions, I put it to the House that in view of their findings, it was impossible for me to adopt any other attitude. I do not propose going into the technical aspect of this matter. The technical officers are in a far better position to deal with matters of that sort. When a question of the axle load to be allowed on certain lines arises, hon. members will appreciate that I cannot set up myself against the authority of the chief civil engineer, a very highly qualified officer. I am not prepared as Minister to overrule officers with highly technical qualifications on matters of that sort. I think in view of all the circumstances, I did not deal unfairly with Col. Collins. I personally would have preferred to have made a statement to the House without further reference to the fact that I had asked him to apply for his retirement, but the hon. member has seen fit to adopt another course. I am sorry the long connection Col. Collins had with the Railway Administration should have come to an end in this manner, but the interests of the Administration must come first.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Mr. SPEAKER announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé and Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius from service on the select committee on the Pretoria Waterworks (Private) Bill and appointed Messrs. Moll and Sephton in their stead.
Second Order read: House to go into committee on the Rand Mines Power Supply Company Additional Water Supply (Private) Bill.
House in Committee:
Clauses, schedules, preamble and title put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.
Third Order read: Shipping Board Bill, as amended in committee of the whole House, to be considered.
Amendments considered.
Amendment in Clause 1 (Dutch), put and agreed to.
On amendment in Clause 2,
I move, as an amendment to this amendment—
This is a small amendment to bring it into line with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter).
seconded.
Agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Amendments in Clause 4 (Dutch) and the title (Dutch), put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.
Fourth Order read: Second report of select committee on Public Accounts (on proposed amendment to paragraph 17 of the regulations for the control and audit of accounts), to be considered.
Report considered.
I move—
seconded.
Agreed to.
Resolution transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.
Fifth Order read: House to go into committee on first report of Select Committee on Native Affairs.
House in Committee:
Recommendations (1) to (11) and the schedules put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Resolutions reported, considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.
Sixth Order read: House to go into committee on the Defence Endowment Property and Account (Amendment) Bill.
House in Committee:
On Clause 1,
I move—
Unfortunately historical monuments are not exempted, and I want to rectify that omission.
I wish to refer to a matter that was raised the other day, namely, the question of the sports ground at Muizenberg. In my opinion there is ground for asking for the favourable consideration of the Government of this matter. The Minister is bound by the Act to sell the property. I do not think anyone can quarrel with that, but the question is whether the Minister can arrange to sell the property to the Cape Town Corporation at a figure which the council can afford to give, and thereby preserve this open space for the benefit of the public. I understand that the ratepayers are taking steps to petition the Cape Town Council with a view to the latter offering a sum for the ground which may be acceptable to the Minister, if he considers it reasonable. There is a possibility that the Minister will not be able to come to terms, and that the property may be sold, and in that event the sports club will suffer, because they will be driven opt and have to find another place. As a result of that the club will lose a considerable sum of money they have spent upon this ground for a considerable number of years; I understand something like £500 annually. If the property is sold by auction, I think it would not be unfair for the Minister of Finance to consider paying the club some amount by way of compensation for the money they have spent upon improving that ground. I believe it is not possible for the Minister of Defence to do this in terms of the Act, but there seems to be some good reason why the Minister of Finance should show a little generosity, seeing that he has a very handsome surplus. I understand that steps are being taken to approach the Minister of Finance in this regard, and I hope that he will take a favourable view of the matter. I would also appeal to the Minister of Defence that at the same time he will help the club as far as he can by representing to the Minister of Finance that it is only fair and reasonable that the club should receive something in the way of compensation for the money which has been spent.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause 2 and title having been agreed to,
House Resumed:
Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.
Seventh Order read: Second reading, Irrigation Loans Adjustments Bill.
I move—
During last session various reports of the Irrigation Commission were laid on the Table and referred to the Select Committee on Irrigation Works. The object was to investigate recommendations about various schemes in the country, and to try to put the schemes on a sound economic basis. The select committee took evidence and made a report, with certain recommendations, to the House. With a few small amendments the recommendations were approved by the House, but conditionally, and the conditions could only be complied with by introducing a Bill. The time then available was not sufficient for that purpose, and the Minister of Finance, by Section 12 of Act No. 21, was given the power of carrying out as far as possible the writings off, or relief which the House had approved. In as much, however, as a few of the recommendations conflicted with the Irrigation Act, all the decisions of the House could not be carried out under the Financial Relations Act. Hence I am introducing this Bill to get power for the effective carrying out of the decisions of the House. One point, for instance, which is dealt with in the Bill, is the matter of joint and several liability, and power is asked to do away with it in certain cases. Further, the curtailment of certain land is dealt with which can only take place if two-thirds of the irrigators approve of it. According to the regulations of the House it was necessary to publish the Bill in November. On that date the negotiations in connection with certain matters had not yet reached the stage of certainty for the necessary steps to be taken in time under the existing law. There are therefore certain clauses in the Bill which have become unnecessary because the difficulties have been removed. I shall, therefore, ask leave later to delete the clauses. I made a promise in the Senate that I would reconsider certain schemes, such as those of Calitzdorp and Bellair, which has been done, and in the case of Bellair, I shall move a small amendment later. The irrigation district of McGregor is dealt with in Clause 3. There the people are jointly and severally responsible, but there are certain works which are beneficial to one group or another, or one or other independent irrigator, and we now propose here to make each person responsible for his particular share. Clause 5 deals with the cutting out of certain land in order to have enough water for the other land. The object is to put the scheme on a sound basis. Clause 5 (1) is intended to give the Minister power to take over the Irrigation Board in the district of Prince River. During great floods some years ago damage was done and compensation was demanded. The House has already decided that in the circumstances of the writing off no compensation ought to be paid. Clause 5 (2) deals with the curtailment of land of which I have already spoken. Clause 5 (3) empowers the Minister, where an irrigator cannot pay, to write off the money without asking special consent of the House of Assembly. That, of course, only happens if it is impossible to collect the money. These schemes have already involved a capital cost of £22,000, £11,580 in interest, and £27,518 has already been written off. I intend to amend Clause 6, dealing with the Bellair irrigation scheme; and so I will not go into it now, and as the requirements of Clause 7 have already been met, I intend to delete it. Clause 8 deals with the Van Rensburg irrigation scheme. Here we are concerned with a question of joint and several liability. The scheme actually appeared to be a failure, and the irrigators prefer its being closed down. It is therefore proposed that each one will bear his own pro rata expenses, and that the joint and several liability will be removed. Sub-section (2) provides that the date 7th May, from when mortgages would have preference owing to the removal of the joint and several liability, shall be altered to 15th December. Then there is also the Calitzdorp scheme, where there is trouble, notwithstanding the fact that the large sum of £90,000 has been written off. Here we have to do with two classes of ground. The first kind under the old furrow is very rich, deep and satisfactory, but a furrow higher up was subsequently dug and the ground under it is very shallow and gravelly. The irrigation commission and the select committee proposed that this latter ground should be excluded, and that the old land should receive additional water for irrigation, and that the balance of the water could be used to irrigate other fruitful ground. The taking away of the water from the poor land causes trouble to a certain extent, because some people think that they ought also to have water in future, in as much as the upper furrow has actually been constructed. Seeing, however, that Government money is concerned, the irrigation commission can do nothing else than abide by its former recommendation.
Although I agree with the main principles of the Bill, and do not doubt the good intentions of the Minister—seeing he is trying to write off debts on irrigation schemes, and to put them on a better footing so that production can increase—I yet feel that the Bill in certain respects interferes greatly with the rights of private persons, some of whom will in consequence be practically ruined. It causes great dissatisfaction. In this connection I want to mention the Calitzdorp scheme. In view of the second reading of the Bill I was sent a few telegrams. One of them reads—
Another which is drafted somewhat drastically, but indicates the disappointment of the people in having their water taken away, reads—
About 1911 the people applied under the Water Conservation Act for the Nels River to be dammed up. The Irrigation Department sent an engineer to make a survey, and according to his estimate, the scheme would cost £65,000. and the irrigable surface area would be increased to 694 morgen as against 3,703 of old ground. The old ground was irrigated by a community stream from the Nels River. Owing to the high price of ostrich feathers at that time the people were very optimistic about the estimated cost and they began to build a dam. The engineer, however, did not take account of the foundations of the dam, and a proper bottom could not be obtained. The result was that it cost £168,000 instead of £65,000 to complete the dam. This immediately caused great disappointment, and with the drop in the price of ostrich feathers the people could not pay interest and redemption. The previous Government sent a commission, and the then Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Smartt) went there to make an agreement with the people. £50,000 in interest and £40,000 in capital was written off on condition that the owners of the old ground should agree to surrender some of their water rights. They had to agree to this because the writing off of £90,000 could not otherwise take place, and the water was then divided equally with the new ground. Even after the £90,000 was written off the people were still unable to pay the interest and redemption money, and this Government appointed a commission to investigate the matter, and to see what could be done for the people. As the Minister has said, the commission found that all the new ground should be cut out, and that the water should be extended to the Gamka to put new ground under water there. This is the cause of the dissatisfaction. I want to say nothing about the finding of the Irrigation Commission, and the action of the select committee, but it is our duty to take action when injustice is done and rights are taken away. There should be compensation in such a case because we have no right to take away people’s rights without compensation. Houses have been built, trees planted, and vineyards laid out on the new ground, but now it is proposed to take away the people’s water without a penny compensation. That is wrong. It is easy to say that the people need not now pay their interest, but there surely is no irrigation scheme where this has hitherto been done. In one case a Mr. Geyser exchanged ground under the old furrow for ground under the new, and he will be considerably injured. When the Bill is in committee I shall move an amendment to provide for compensation for the water taken away, and because it is a money matter, I ask the Minister to obtain the consent of the Governor-General to the amendment. The amendment to Clause 10 reads—
I notice that under Clauses 5. 6 and 7, for example, the Minister has power to exclude certain farms in irrigation districts.
What is the reason for excluding these farms’ They came in originally under the survey and the farmers are now to be exempt from liability. I have no doubt the Minister gave, the explanation, but we could not hear him over here.
The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) quoted a few telegrams, one of which says that, if the water is taken away we will have a hot time. They apparently think that the water can be donated to them, and that Parliament is a charitable institution to make presents to them. The fact is that large amounts have already been written off the scheme. The commission has carefully gone into it, and they find that the ground which they proposed to cut out is a total failure. There is other ground which may prove a success. What is the use of irrigating land which cannot be made a success of? If the people are so terribly anxious to keep their ground irrigated—ground that will never pay— then I will compromise with the hon. member by making the same provisions applicable to them as in the case of the Bon Accord irrigation scheme. There the commission recommended that the irrigators should pay a certain rate on good ground, and those who did not have good ground, yet did not want it cut out of the scheme, would pay the same amount on the ground We do not want to cut out the ground against the people’s wishes, but let them pay the money due otherwise. The hon. member says that the people there are dissatisfied. Very well, let them keep the water, but pay for it, as was done at Bon Accord, and I am prepared to meet them in this case as well. Now the hon. member says that we must pay the people compensation. Are we then to compensate for something which they have never yet made pay? If the people had paid their water rates, then I think there would certainly be something in the hon. member’s argument, but when they have paid nothing they can surely not claim compensation. If we did so we would go too far. But I should be quite willing in select committee to meet the wishes of the people. Let them keep the water if they wish, but then we must say: “Very well, but you must pay for it in that case.” The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked why in certain cases we wanted to remove ground from the irrigation schemes. It appears, from the enquiry of the commission, that they find that more ground came under the scheme where it was erected than there was water for. That makes the whole scheme unsound, so that at times the ground only gets about a quarter of the water it requires. They therefore made the recommendation in order to get the schemes on a sound basis, so that the Government should recover the money it has spent. We discussed the matter with the people and concluded that they would never be able to pay the water rates in respect of the ground which will be cut out. We therefore decided it was better to give the other ground adequate water so that the farmers could pay water rates on it. The whole object, therefore, is to make the schemes economically sound. I am sorry that I cannot accept the motion of my hon. friend the hon. member for Ladismith.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move—
seconded.
Agreed to.
Eighth Order read: Second reading, Native Administration Act, 1927, Further Amendment Bill.
I move—
I may say at once that there would be no necessity for it if the amendment which it contains could have been taken in a Bill of which the second reading has already been taken. Unfortunately it was due to the fact that it is in conflict with the machinery of the House, and consequently I was forced to bring in this little Bill, which really contemplates nothing more than amending Section (11) of the existing Act with regard to native succession. Masters in the various provinces have differently interpreted that section, so that some take it that they have to administer estates which it was never contemplated should be administered by them. I hope later, when we come to another stage, that the House will allow me to simplify matters with regard to these two Bills and to suggest methods of procedure which will simplify matters much by taking the two together.
I have had considerable experience of these native estates, and you find that frequently small estates have to be administered by the colonial law, which involves a tremendous amount of worry, trouble and expense. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have the provisions of this Bill. The natives will welcome it, and it is necessary in their interests.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and referred to the Committee of the whole House on the Native Administration Act. 1927, Amendment Bill.
Tenth Order read: House to go into committee on the Cape Mission Stations and Communal Reserves (Amendment) Bill.
House in Committee:
Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 11th March.
Eleventh Order read: House to go into committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill.
House in Committee:
Clauses and title put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.
Twelfth Order read: House to go into committee on the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Bill.
House in Committee:
On new Clause 2, proposed by select committee,
I move—
Agreed to.
New Clause 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
On new Clause 3, as proposed by select committee,
I move—
Agreed to.
New Clause 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 4, amendments proposed by select committee in line 55 on page 6 and in line 4 on page 8,
I move—
Amendments put and agreed to.
Amendment in line 55 proposed by select committee to insert “as prescribed by regulation”; and amendment in line 4, on page 8, proposed by select committee, to insert “with intent” put and negatived.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 5,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 9, amendment proposed by select committee in line 46,
I move—
Agreed to; amendment proposed by select committee dropped.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 10,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 11,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 13, amendment proposed by select committee in line 19 to insert “only”,
I move—
Amendment put and agreed to; amendment proposed by select committee put and negatived.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 14,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On new Clause 15 proposed by select committee,
I move—
Agreed to.
New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 15,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
New sub-section (3) proposed by select committee, put and negatived.
I move—
- (3) No person shall sell as milk, milk to which any substance has been added or from which any part of any of its constituents has been removed or which contains less than three parts per centum of milk-fat or less than the percentage of milk-solids-not-fat prescribed by regulation, unless it is sold for manufacturing purposes on the basis of its milk-fat content or its total milk-solids content.
Agreed to.
On new sub-section (4) proposed by select committee,
I move—
Agreed to.
New sub-section (4), as amended, put and agreed to.
I move—
- (7) No person shall consign or convey milk for sale in a can or other receptacle of more than three gallons capacity if the can or receptacle is not sealed, locked or otherwise secured so as effectively to prevent the contents being tampered with during transit: Provided that this requirement shall not apply to milk conveyed by a dairy farmer or his servant in a receptacle and on a vehicle owned by him to any cream depôt, condensed milk factory, creamery, or cheese factory registered under the Dairy Industry Act, No. 16 of 1918, or any amendment thereof.
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 16,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 18,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 19,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 20,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 27,
I move—
Agreed to.
On amendment proposed by select committee in lines 60 and 61,
I move—
Agreed to; amendment proposed by select committee dropped.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 29, new sub-section (1) proposed by select committee,
I move—
Agreed to.
New sub-section (1), as amended, put and agreed to.
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 33,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 34, amendments proposed by select committee in lines 9 and 10,
I move, as amendments to these amendments—
Agreed to.
Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 35,
I move—
I have been asked to move this amendment by persons interested in the manufacture of soap. We all agree that a Bill of this kind is very necessary, and soap manufacturers, as well as other people, are grateful to the Minister for having introduced it. At the same time, these manufacturers say that if this clause is passed as it now stands, it will give too great a power to the Minister. I hope to receive sympathetic treatment from the hon. the Minister. I am sure I can rely on the support of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). He was on the select committee which sat last year to deal with the whole of this matter, and the hon. member said last year that he saw from the point of view of administration how important it is to have a certain amount of elasticity, but there was, he said, a growing tendency in legislation to give autocratic powers to the Minister and to heads of departments. People who are concerned in the manufacture of soap are somewhat discomfited by the enormous powers the Minister has taken to himself. He may apply this Bill practically to any substance, and that is why I have moved the amendment. I am not going to deal with chewing gum; I will confine myself to soap. I have received a letter which deals with the matter fairly, and in the course of it the writer observes—
I have consulted one or two of the large manufacturers and they say they will have no objection to the Minister introducing an amendment whereby the composition of the soap has to be stated on the wrapper. I have had a letter from five or six other soap manufacturers who seem to be very much perturbed at my introducing this amendment, but I have done so in the interests of the smaller manufacturers and the users. I do not know any case in which the use of soap would injure anyone, for it is not an article of consumption in the sense that a person swallows it, soap being merely for external use.
I hope the hon. member will not press the amendment, as it would have the effect of withdrawing soap and all similar articles from the operations of the Bill, and a great deal of usefulness of the measure, which is a crying need, would be lost. There is no doubt that a good deal of soap is being manufactured which is harmful to the skin and injurious to materials washed by them. There is a real demand for soap to fall under the operations of the Bill. I have received a copy of the following letter, which has been sent to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) by the most important soap manufacturers—
With regard to the other point raised by the hon. member, soap manufacturers will be consulted fully in the laying down of standards.
It is perfectly clear from the letter that its authors write from their own interested point of view. Dr. Wilmot, when giving evidence before the select committee in reply to a question from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who asked why the Minister should have power to deal with face powders and creams, replied, “We are not in a position to-day to standardize everything.” That implies that soap should be standardized. The objection these people have is that there is nothing definite as to how far they may go with regard to the inclusion of oils and fats and so on. Surely a standard should be laid down in the interests of the smaller manufacturers and of the people who cannot afford to pay high prices for toilet soap. The promises the Minister makes do not have the effect of legislation, but if we could have this word deleted from the Bill and a specific standard laid down, people would know exactly where they were and how far they could go. One finds on boxes containing patent medicines and often on the bottles themselves that it is stated definitely what the contents are, and surely in the case of soap it is possible to have it stated what oils and fats have been included in the manufacture.
Amendments put and negatived.
On Clause 43,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 44,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On the title,
I move—
Agreed to.
Title, as amended, put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Bill reported with amendments and specially an alteration in the title.
Amendments to be considered on 12th March.
Thirteenth Order read: Second reading, Incorporated Law Society of the Orange Free State Amendment (Private) Bill.
I move—
The Bill contemplates the amendment of Ordinance No. 9 of 1903 of the Free State. The first amendment is a purely formal one in the name of the society, namely, to replace “Orange River Colony by “Orange Free State”. The chief and most important amendment is intended to bring conveyancers also under the jurisdiction of the law society. As matters now stand, the Ordinance of 1903 only referred to attorneys and notaries, and not to conveyancers. I want to point out that it is actually already the case in the Cape Province under Act 20 of 1916. In the Transvaal the conveyancers also came under the jurisdiction of the Law Society by Ordinance No. of 1905. In Natal this was not at first the case, but it has also been brought into effect by Act No. 24 of 1926. This Bill, as hon. members can see from Clause 2, now proposes that after a certain time—
At the moment the position is such that practically every new attorney in the Free State becomes a conveyancer, and attorneys are members of the law society. There are, however, still in the Free State law agents who, under the old republican laws, can act as conveyancers. They are conveyancers, but not members of the law society, and it is principally the object of this Bill to bring those people also under the jurisdiction of the law society. As the law society in the Free State does not have the same disciplinary powers as the other provinces, the position existing in the Free State to-day is different. In the Cape Province, e.g., an attorney on the countryside will not necessarily be a conveyancer. He sends the transfer to an attorney in a large town, who sees to it, and they divide up the fees between them in certain proportions. This means that in the Cape Province, and in the other provinces, it is possible for a man to get fees from conveyancing without his having passed an examination in it, or taken out a licence. That is not the case in the Free State. It was decided by the Supreme Court there that no one may receive a fee, or part of a fee, for conveyancing unless he has passed an examination, and holds a licence. The result is that every attorney on the countryside in the Free State is obliged to pass an examination, and to pay a licence, because then only can he receive a share of the fees. As a result of that, certain practices that are undesirable and competition have arisen between the attorneys in the large towns. One offers a larger share of the fee than another in order in that way to get hold of more business. The law society decided that such practices were unprofessional and undesirable. The society drew up certain regulations to prevent it, but found that the regulations were powerless because the law-agents do not fall under the regulations of the law society. Hence it is proposed here to give disciplinary powers to the law society to lay down fines for contravention by means of regulations. The matters went to a select committee and certain evidence was taken. The secretary of the society pointed out that a decision had been taken in 1928 by which members of the law society unanimously asked for steps to be taken by Act of Parliament to bring all conveyancers under the jurisdiction of ’the law society. Further, the law society sent a notice to all the conveyancers in the Free State and got the signatures of all— both attorneys and others—to come under the incorporated law society. The document they signed is on page 2 of the select committee’s evidence. [Document read.] It further occurred in the evidence that there are now only about 20 conveyancers who are not attorneys, and the number is necessarily becoming less by effluxion of time. There is only one other point I want to mention. There is an idea in the House in connection with Bills of this kind that it is intended to benefit certain professions as against the public. This Bill is, however, not intended to do anything of the sort. It has exactly the opposite effect. It makes no difference in the existing law regarding fees and privileges. The fees of conveyancers are already laid down in a series of regulations under an Act of 1918, and no alteration is being made in that. The Bill only aims at preventing conveyancers doing unprofessional things. They are all restricted to seeing that they carry out the wishes of the public, and to serving the public better. The intention is to bind the conveyancers and not to give them more privileges, and to put them approximately on the same footing as conveyancers in the other three provinces. There will be another difference in one respect, namely, that the Free State conveyancers on the countryside will continue to have to pass an examination, and to have to pay a licence, which is not the case in the other provinces.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.
House in Committee:
On Clause 2,
Will the conveyancers who are not attorneys retain their rights in the future?
Their status is not altered.
They get a higher status because they are now becoming members of the Law Society.
We also had conveyancers in the Cape, but their rights were taken away, allowing attorneys only to be conveyancers. Now a group of people in the Free State must get these rights. Why then cannot the rights also be obtained by the people in the Cape and Transvaal who have lost their rights? If the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) accepts an amendment on these lines—
It will conflict with the rules of the House.
Then we must divide on it because I do not see why an injustice should be done to the people in the Cape and the Transvaal while those in the Free State are preferred.
The hon. member reads it wrongly. There is no reason for fear. No new privileges which they do not have in the Cape Province are being given. The proposal really is to bring the conveyancers in the Free State under discipline which they are not under to-day. No amendment as to the admission of conveyancers is proposed. The Bill is in the interests of the public.
Clause put and agreed to.
Remaining clauses, preamble and title put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Bill reported without amendment.
I move, as an unopposed motion—
seconded.
The hon. member, in introducing this Bill, made reference to certain regulations which were framed and issued by the Lands Department in 1923, I think, inter alia, fixing the scale of fees for conveyancers. I wish to comment on these fees as paid for conveyancers by virtue of these regulations. The basis on which these fees are paid seems to me to be altogether wrong. In regard to transfer deeds, the fees are based on the purchase price of the property sold.
I am afraid the hon. member can hardly discuss that under this Bill.
The hon. member who introduced the Bill referred to these regulations.
The hon. member cannot discuss that now.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The House adjourned at