I move—

I move—

Hon. members will see that four proposals are submitted to the House in this Bill, three of which refer to railway construction, and hon. members will also see that in all three cases the construction is covered by guarantees of the public concerned, or the company asking for the construction. There is therefore no question of construction without guarantees. Hon. members will also have obtained full details in connection with these proposals from the report of the railway board laid on the Table, and I therefore do not intend to cover again all the ground in connection with the proposals. I think, however, it is necessary to say a few words in connection with particular proposals, especially that of the Koopmansfontein-Postmasburg line. Hon. members know that in 1925 Dr. Hall, one of the Mines Department officials, investigated the large deposits of manganese in Postmasburg and its surroundings, and after the enquiry he issued a report, after which great interest was taken in connection with the development of our deposit of manganese, but schemes have hitherto always failed owing to the absence of a railway line. The persons and companies concerned all said that there were very good manganese deposits, and that we ought to build a line, after which they would see that the manganese was mined. The attitude of the railway administration has always been that we admitted that large quantities of manganese were used in the world, but that we knew that there were supplies of it in other places which were closer to the great centres of consumption than we were, and we always said that if manganese companies had first of all to prove that they were in earnest in connection with the matter by providing the necessary capital for the construction of the railway. We did not see our way to building the line at State expense, and negotiations were carried on for years, but unfortunately we could not arrive at any agreement until eventually the British-Swiss International Corporation approached us with such proposals, that, after lengthy negotiations and consideration of various points, an agreement was concluded on the basis now before the House. I can give the heads of the agreement in a few words. The company agrees to place a guarantee for the capital for the construction of the railway line in full at the disposal of the Railway Administration, an amount of £302,000 plus a maximum of 10 per cent. Including interests on the capital of £302,000, the cost of construction is estimated at £310,000. The company undertakes to pay this to the Railway Administration pari passu with the construction, and the Railway Administration on the other hand undertakes to repay it to the company after 10 years. In the meantime interest on the capital required for the construction is reckoned at 4½ per cent., and the 4½ per cent, will form a debit on the actual cost of running the railway. In that way they guarantee us against any loss, and as a guarantee they must lodge security with the Government up to a sum of £100,000. This safeguards the Railway Administration against any possible loss, and it is a responsibility on the company to make good any loss to the State. In addition guarantee is given that after the first year at least 350.000 tons per year will be transported, and if that quantity is not maintained, 2s. per ton compensation will be paid for every ton short.

2s.?

Yes, 2s., and that in turn goes to the credit of the running costs. Then hon. members will see that the company has further undertaken to enter into an agreement with the Electricity Commission—and the agreement will be possible—that they will within 5 years erect certain reduction works along the Natal main line. Hon. members will appreciate why we do this. Hon. members of the select committee in any case are aware of it. The troubles in connection with the Colenso power station have always hitherto been that a larger number of power consumers were necessary to create a sound position for the Railway Administration with regard to the use of electrical power. The capital costs of Colenso are very high, and until such time as we have a large number of consumers of power it will not be a financial success to the Railway Administration. We have practically to continue to pay full interest on the capital. There are indeed a few consumers, but the number is very small in comparison with what the Railway Administration uses. The traffic will, of course, go via Bloemfontein, and we do not define precisely where the reduction works must be put up so long as they are along the main line, and the power is drawn from Colenso. As for the position of other companies not included in the contract, their interests are also protected. In their interest we have included the provision that any company or person having manganese interests can make use of the railway, but they must pay the same proportionate amount of capital cost, and bear the same amount of responsibility, once more in proportion to the British-Swiss Corporation. I think that is very fair. I may say that the quantities of manganese in Postmasburg are practically inexhaustible, and as long as a market abroad can be found for manganese, there can be no question of a reduction of business. The company has not the least doubt that the thing will pay, and that the export, instead of diminishing, will increase. The terminus has been put near the village of Postmasburg to serve the community there, and the ordinary revenue of the railway is estimated at £17,800, and that from manganese at £34,000, while the deficit at the start is reckoned at £16,900. The company, however, guarantees any loss. Apart from the manganese interests there are great possibilities of development in other departments. In the area to be served by the railway we already have 446 miles of road motor services, which carried 6,800 passengers last year, 1,900 tons of goods, and 24,500 gallons of cream, earning £10,790. That is a proof that the area is not so unproductive as some people think. Hon. members will see that the company had to deposit £5,000 at once as a proof of good faith for the execution of the contract, and we shall not commence construction until the company has provided the funds. The second proposal refers to the Witvlei-Gobabis line. In this case the interest on capital is guaranteed by the South-West Administration. We provided in the 1925 railway programme for an expenditure of £348,000 for the line from Oekaremba to Witvlei. The line is practically finished, and we have saved £80,000 in expenditure. On account of the keenness of the South-West Administration for the extension of the line to Gobabis, in view of the settlement and other interests there, the Railway Administration agreed to spend the savings on the extension of the line. The costs of extension are estimated at £96,000, and owing to the saving on the line up to Witvlei the additional capital sum will be negligible— and as I have said, the South-West Administration guarantees the interest on the expenditure. Now I come to the third proposal, namely, the deviation at Dordrecht. The line from Sterkstroom to Indwe was built in 1896 by a private company, and hon. members acquainted with the position will agree with me when I say that a great mistake was made at the time of the construction in taking it a distance of three miles off the town of Dordrecht. Since 1903 the public of Dordrecht have been agitating for a deviation.

We are also agitating.

I do not know exactly what deviation the hon. member means, but if they are prepared to accept the conditions which Dordrecht have accepted we shall be prepared to consider their representations. We told the Dordrecht public that they must themselves bear the capital cost if they wanted the deviation, because it would be unfair to ask the State to bear the expense, seeing the railways in any case get the traffic, even if the public have to transport the load 3 miles. At the same time it was felt that it was no more than fair that we should give the Dordrecht public a reasonable time for payment. Let me say that all the classes of the community— the Farmers’ Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Town Council and the Divisional Council—have given their approval in writing to this extra payment which is laid down in the contract. I want to tell the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten) that he, or any subsequent member for his constituency, must not come to me or any future Minister of Railways, to ask for a reduction. That is a clear understanding with the Dordrecht public.

Such understandings have existed before and yet there have been subsequent representations.

The former arrangements were on a different basis, by way of subsidy, as in the case of the Strand. In this case it is not a question of collections from the public, but every man who travels or consigns goods must automatically make the extra payment. It will be necessary to pull up the line for a distance of 8¼ miles, and to relay it for a distance of 9¼ miles at a cost of £45,000. There will, however, be repayments on material up to an amount of £5,000, so that the maximum cost is estimated at £40,000, repayable over a period of 34 years. All the other interests north and south of Dordrecht will not be affected by any higher rates. So here there will be no increased tariff on traffic from Maclear, Ugie and Elliott, because the deviation of the line makes it a little longer. Nor must it be thought that the Dordrecht public will get no benefit from the deviation. There is a contract to-day for the carriage from the station to the i town, and in this expense the public will secure a reduction if the station comes nearer to the town. Now I come to the last of the items, namely, the removal of the Sea Point line. The line was constructed by a private company in 1891, and in 1905 it was taken over by the old Cape Parliament with a guarantee for ten years. Since 1915 there has been no guarantee.

That was at the request of the Administration.

Since 1915 there has been a loss of £150,000 on the Sea Point line and in consequence of the electrification the loss has unfortunately become much greater. It is the general view, including that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbours) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and the Sea Point public that there is no justification for the continuance of the line. I have been accused of being responsible for the electrification and that I should have listened to the recommendation of Dr. van der Byl to pull up the line and build a motor road. I am certain that Dr. van der Byl’s scheme would have appeared impracticable because the people in any event now want to be picked up at their doors on the Main Road and along the High Level Road. The public do not want to walk a yard further if means of transport passes their doors. Hon. members living or lodging in Sea Point have doubtless already remarked that the trains are running empty while the public stand in clusters along the road to crowd each other in the buses and trams. If the people do not want the railway—although it is fitted out in the most modern way—then there is no justification for the State to continue it. I appreciate the assistance I have received from the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) and from the town councils and other public bodies of Cape Town, and they have all taken up the attitude that it is no longer possible for the Administration to continue the line. We expect a loss of capital amounting to £56,000. The calculation is a sacrifice of £61,000, but the Administration will get back £4,900 in the breaking up of the line which brings the amount to £56,000. The loss will have to be covered from the available surplus because there can be no question of keeping the amount on the loan account. One of the conditions of the renewal is that the land from Monument Station to Three Anchor Bay—which belongs to the Cape Town Municipality—will revert to it. The land between Three Anchor Bay and Sea Point reverts to the State, but an agreement has been come to with the Mayor of Cape Town that it will be given to the town council, provided that it is not built on, but that it shall be kept as open space for the benefit of the public. This will help to increase the attractiveness of Sea Point. I think that I have now fully dealt with the proposals in the Bill.

Let me say at once that as far as we are concerned, we do not oppose any movement in the direction of developing the country. I think every hon. member will agree that we should do everything we can to develop the country. I am glad to see that the Minister has accepted the guarantee, and where I must criticize, he must understand that I am not doing so in any spirit of opposition, but to show where matters can be improved. In the matter of the British-Swiss Corporation agreement, it would have been well, I think, had the Minister referred it to the select committee on railways and harbours. We want explanations. In reading the agreement there are some portions which I cannot thoroughly appreciate, and if we could go fully into the clauses in the select committee, we would not only save time, but we could report what our views are. All these privately guaranteed lines have in the past resulted in financial difficulty. In connection with the Utrecht branch line there was an agreement by which the Utrecht collieries should pay 35 per cent, of the revenue, but under the Strange agreement they were credited with far more than could reasonably be expected and the result was that the Railway Administration suffered loss, although it was a guaranteed line.

That was a result of the nature of the agreement.

Then we have the Messina line in which the loss on the year’s working was £50,000. and the Railway Administration has suffered an aggregate loss of £457,514 as a result of the working of the line. It seems to me that these agreements should be more closely scrutinized and I suggest to the Minister that he should send them to the select committee. As far as I can understand this agreement which has been mentioned, it is a matter of the company merely advancing money to the Government at 4½ per cent, for the building of the line, and it seems to me there is very little advantage because the Government could have raised that money and would not have been bound down to these conditions which may detrimentally affect the development of that part of the country. Under section (3) (a) the Government will not be able to charge the company with the interest on the money during construction, yet by 6 (b), when they pay back the amount borrowed to that company afterwards, they have to include the interest during construction.

It forms a debit against the working of the line from year to year.

The Government has to pay back the capital.

The interest is debited against the working year by year.

I may be wrong, but that was how I read it. That is another reason why this should be sent to the select committee. Then why is the Minister charging only 10 per cent, on capital for mechanical appliances. You are charging only 5½per cent, for redemption and working costs, which cannot pay the Administration. From the business point of view, it seems we are merely borrowing from the company, and we are refusing any new companies working unless they pay a share of the expenses. In regard to the Dordrecht line, it seems to me very strange that in one and the same Bill you scrap one line and build another, and both are guaranteed lines, and here again, I think, we might have had further information. If you look at page 17 of the report, it seems to me that the board had serious difficulties. In the first instance they said that the construction was not regarded favourably from the Administration’s point of view, because it was not thought that the amount of traffic would justify the deviation. They changed their minds afterwards, and got a guarantee. Is not motor transport competition going seriously to damage the chance of success of this line?

Our own.

I did not know that. That is not explained here. The Minister ought to go fully into the question. No railway line should be built where it is possible to run motor services successfully. In the past, we have found from the board’s reports that they have been out of touch with the interests of the country. On the Kalabaskraal-Saldanha line there have been losses for three years running, and the same applies to the Kraaifontein-Klaver line, and many others throughout the country. To-day it may be very much worse, because there is bus competition. I want to emphasize that these reports should go to a select committee and be before us, because we have never had a correct estimate by the Railway Board. If we look at the branch lines we find that in nine instances where the board was required to report on the probable earnings that it was wrong in every instance, and that the shortfalls were large amounts, such as £9,900, £1,600, £1,500. £5,000, £7,100 and £3,500. In other words, whereas the Board recommended that its estimate should be taken, the actual amount produced represented a loss of £52,000 upon an estimate of £131,000. I want the Minister to consider whether, in view of this, he should not exercise very great care and get more up-to-date estimates. Coming to the Sea Point line, I want to thank the Minister for the consideration he has shown in dealing with this matter, and thereby allowing the people chiefly concerned to have some say. The Minister has met us very fairly, and I am going to ask him to go a little further. We have sacrificed a lot at Sea Point in regard to this railway in the past. The tramway company had a stranglehold on the people of Sea Point, who subscribed for the building of the first line and lost every penny. They also for many years guaranteed and paid all the losses. After that, the Administration suggested that the people should pay a round sum, so that there is no blame as far as Sea Point is concerned. The people of Sea Point paid all they were required to pay, and paid it very willingly. I want to ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that if the tramway company or the bus companies again get a stranglehold, he will give the most careful consideration to the question of starting a railway bus service in that area. If he will do that, I think the people of Sea Point will be very satisfied. They fear another stranglehold, and I think they have every right to have that fear, because they were very badly treated. I know the losses have been great, and the Minister has met the position very fairly, but if he can go to the length I have suggested, he will greatly satisfy the people. In this connection I want to warn the Minister that the suburban line will be in the same position before very long if we continue as at present. I will tell you why. We now have the whole of the electrified railways at the mercy of the Electricity Commission, which is not subject to audit by the Auditor-General, but their own auditors. Our own Auditor-General has nothing to do with them. I find that the reserve fund contribution is 2.9 per cent., and that the Administration holds very strongly that per cent, would be quite sufficient. 2.9 per cent, is a very large sum to pay annually upon three and a half million. Take the Colenso line. It is estimated that the Administration would save £76,000 per annum in capital charges if they had charge of it. On Administration charges we would save £16,000 per annum. Thus if Colenso were handed back to the Administration there would be a saving of between £91,000 and £92,000 per annum. I am told in regard to the charges at Salt River that the position is very much worse. The estimated cost of the power station was £977,000 but the expenditure up to December last was £1,239,000 and up to date is £1,450.000. The Railway Department has to pay every penny of the working expenses. The working costs, which were estimated at £151,000 per annum, have actually been £220,000 per annum. The railways are paying more for light and more for running costs than when the current was obtained from the municipality. Workshops pay £5,000 per annum more. The working expenses to the railways were estimated at £169,000 per annum, but the actual figure is £488,000. The commission’s head office charges amount to £24,000 per annum, and for six months the commission charged the Administration £107,500, or at the rate of £215,000 per annum, whereas the actual charge should have been £88,000 even though the basis taken was the serious overcharge for current in comparison to the cost of generating. I mention these facts to show that the actual losses on the Sea Point line were nothing like the losses now set down. I mention these facts further to warn the Minister that if we are going to continue like this, every electrified line will be in danger of having to be scrapped. The overhead charges are enormous, and the Railway Department is bearing the whole burden of them. I think the time has arrived when these matters should be gone into, and a change be made, so that the Auditor-General may have command of these accounts. With great confidence I appeal to the Minister to consider the request of the public meeting held at Sea Point which, to a very large extent, passed a unanimous resolution requesting the Government to protect the public by giving them the assurance that should the tramway company increase the fares unduly, the Railway Administration will arrange for a bus service in competition with the tramways. I know that the Minister’s policy is that the railway buses should not run in competition with ordinary bus traffic where possible, but when the Railway Administration is appealed to for the protection of the public in the event of the tramway company unduly raising the fares, then I think the Minister can safely do it, and let the people have a little hope for the future.

I am glad that I can give my almost wholehearted support to the Bill, but I am sorry that I cannot agree with every detail. Railway communication is a long-standing need. It not only supplies a great requirement of agriculture in the neighbourhood, but also the need of exploitation of the mineral treasures of such an area. The result was that a great many more requests for railway communication were made, besides that by the company concerned here, to supply the need for development. The Minister and the House are acquainted with the proposals which I have made here, and deputations have made to the Railway Board. I am grateful that provision has finally been made for the manganese industry at Postmasburg. In consequence of the personal experience I have had I think that I can remove the fear the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that this line will not pay. I remember the report which was made at the time by the official of the Mines Department—Dr. Hall—in which he concluded that about 100,000,000 tons of manganese ore could be mined in that area. If the present world market justifies it the company will now be able to comply with its maximum obligations, namely, to transport at least 350,000 tons a year. According to that maximum there will thus be enough manganese for at least 300 years to feed that traffic. The fields extend over an area of 10 to 20 miles. We do not wish to take it that the revenue of the line will only come out of manganese traffic. As the Minister has already said there is a considerable amount of agriculture there, and it will probably be very much developed if the railway is built. Therefore I want to thank the Minister in the name of the population of Postmasburg and the neighbourhood. But for us who, during the last few years, have become accustomed to our Government giving special attention to the development of agricultural railways, it is a little disappointing that it is not in the first place an agricultural railway, but an industrial one. Although I heartily welcome the development of the industry I feel that there is a larger area which is not being served, and which is an important agricultural area which is itself possibly more developed than the area which is served by the railway. Of course I do not want to lose sight of the capital and guarantee for the route, but yet I feel that the manganese area could be just as well served by another railway from the other junction, which could contribute much more to the agricultural development of a large area. I assume that the area to be served will greatly develop, and in that connection I want two assurances from the Minister. In the first place under Clause 9 of the agreement the hands of the Administration are left practically free to charge standard rates for all traffic. Now I assume that if there is an alteration for agricultural produce in the general tariff in favour of agriculture it will also apply to that area, and that no higher rates than the ordinary ones can be charged. I should like to have that assurance from the Minister. Another point is in connection with Clause 20 in view of the yearly increasing need of Griqualand West, and especially the southern portion of Griqualand, not only in so far as the development of agriculture is concerned, but also of other minerals which are found there, such as phosphates and asbestos. Now I should like to be assured by the Minister that Clause 20 does not prevent him from subsequently extending and developing the railway in a southerly direction without further capital contribution to this line having to be made by the State. It is possible that within a reasonable time the district may be so developed, and the needs be so great that the line will have to be extended. Will this agreement not hamper us in that? Clause 15 practically creates a monopoly for the British-Swiss Corporation, but if other companies contribute a proportionate amount to the capital expenditure can they also carry manganese ore over the railway? I should like to know whether the stipulation also applies to other minerals.

No, only for manganese.

If the Government feels that development in other districts is such that the railway ought to be extended, will the capital cost have to be contributed to?

No.

Then I am glad and grateful, so that the possibilities for development of Griqualand West will not be hampered. My objections to the agreement which, of course, must be confirmed by an Act, are not great, but yet there are a few points. The first the Minister has agreed to, namely, that the Government will not be bound to make a capital contribution of the railway is extended. Still I feel that a monopoly is practically created as against other companies. And what of the existing companies at Postmasburg? I do not know precisely what the position there is. Are they all included in the agreement of the British-Swiss company?

A part of them.

I can, of course, understand the argument that a company which guarantees the capital can make claim to a certain extent that other companies shall also contribute to the capital if they carry manganese, but this surely somewhat cripples development. With a view to the future development of the area the route is a matter of great importance. I note that the route in accordance with the recommendations of the engineer is via Silver-streams, and that Danielskuil is excluded. I do not know what the possibilities of traffic in the proposed direction are, but a considerable area which is longing for railway communication is being excluded. I want to ask the Minister to review the question of the building of the terminal station. According to the agreement the station must be built on one of two places. One is about five miles, and the other about two-and-a-half miles, from Postmasburg. I understand that the company finding the capital must be served in the first place, but in addition the Minister will feel that the village of Postmasburg will considerably extend, and that it will be a handicap to the whole community if the station is a few miles away from the village. The position is that the Administration cannot depart from the agreement unless it can be altered from an engineering point of view. Now I hope that the Minister will reconsider this side of the matter to assist the village further. The Minister and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) have already pointed out that one of the additional benefits will be the starting of further industries along the Colenso-Durban line. We do not sufficiently value the possibilities which may lead to the using of electrical power, the development of which is a great burden on the Railway Administration to-day. According to the existing agreement the burdens on the Administration are lightened by the electric current which will be bought by private consumers, and the erection of additional smelting works and the use of more current is a strong argument in favour of the contract. I am glad the Government has decided to extend the railway in South-West. I was not able to get all the details but, according to the information I have, I must dissent from what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) recently said about the Angola settlers. With the improvement of marketing facilities for their produce they will have the best opportunity of making a success of their farming. Regarding the Sea Point line there cannot be two views of the matter. The decision to take up the lines is the only possible one. As to the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) against the existing line I can only say that no suburb could have a better and more convenient railway. I have had the opportunity of living in the suburbs of Europe and have not seen, even in Germany, any better railway service than that on the Sea Point line. The convenience of the railway is not therefore in point, the chief cause of the loss is no doubt the keen competition. Before I leave the subject I want to comment upon the mentality of hon. members who represent towns. It would be amusing if it were not so serious. The townspeople have the greatest conveniences possible, but when conveniences are extended to the countryside they pull wry faces, if they do not weep. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is worried that the line to Postmasburg will not pay, but glosses over the loss on the Sea Point line and the Cape Town-Wynberg-Simonstown line, and then he wants the Railway Administration to undertake that the Sea Point public will not pay a penny more for their conveyance to and from town. If the Minister goes so far as to give him the assurance, that he will protect the Sea Point public against tariffs, then it will not have my support. I welcome all reasonable measures for developing the countryside, and we who represent it, feel particularly hurt at the attitude which is adopted towards it. Guarantees must be given and statistics supplied to see that not a penny will be lost, and this while the townspeople possess all the conveniences for which, in many cases, they do not pay adequately. In proof of this I can quote that the Sea Point line incurred a loss of £150,000, and the Cape Town-Simonstown line an annual loss of £250,000. Pretoria has a line which does not pay. Johannesburg I will not go into, but that town is now getting a large new railway station. The inhabitants of the big towns use a magnifying glass in the case of facilities for the countryside, but they try to hide the cost of their own. We welcome the proposals as a whole, and I hope that the Minister will take into consideration the one or two points I have submitted.

I propose to deal almost exclusively with the proposed construction of a railway from Koopmansfontein to Postmasburg. I look upon this as one of the most important things that has happened in South Africa for a long time, for I do not think the Minister at all exaggerated when he described the Postmasburg deposits of manganese ore as practically inexhaustible. Evidently other people think so too, because there are indications that several companies propose, if circumstances permit, to exploit these deposits. The importance of this will be realized if we consider that we are definitely in a steel age. Practically the whole operations of the world are becoming mechanized, and for that purpose more and more steel is essential. Steel is not only extensively used now, but will be used even more extensively in the future in bridges, all structural matters, in house building and in production for the various industries which are carried on. Manganese is essential for the production of steel. It so happens it can be used for the production not only of hard steel but also mild steel. It can be also combined with copper to form the basis of manganese bronze and other alloys which are being more and more extensively used for industrial purposes. If the demand for manganese is great now, it is likely to become still greater in the future, and I think it is agreed by the people most interested that probably in the future her base metals will be more important to South Africa than even gold has been in the past. If we cast our minds back to the last thirty or forty years and see the enormous influence that the discovery and production of gold in the Transvaal has had not only on South Africa, but on the business, trade and commerce of the whole world, we may imagine that something perhaps on a greater scale will occur with the development of the use of steel, which can only be developed with the use of manganese. The whole world is looking for suitable metals to carry out the policy of mechanization. The thing we are very interested in now, the speed trials at Verneuk Pan, where a remarkable car is to attempt to lower the world’s record, illustrates that this car and the speed possible is the result of discoveries and experiments made in metals from time to time. In fact speed is largely a matter of finding suitable metals to stand the strain. In view, then, of the great expansion of steel production which is within sight in the future it is no wonder that the discovery of these extensive manganese deposits has attracted the attention of several companies. It is interesting to know from sources outside this report that contracts have been already made and prices fixed with overseas users of manganese, and for very large quantities indeed; so if this agreement goes through on satisfactory conditions, we may look forward to a very large export of these manganese ores. This agreement might count for nothing unless very substantial guarantees required by the Government are given, and the Government requires a security of no less than £100,000 to be put up by this company. Furthermore, the agreement provides that at least 200,000 tons must be exported the first year after the railway is opened and thereafter 350,000 tons per annum for ten years. The Minister will not deny that much larger figures are expected in the near future. I do not suppose I would be accused of exaggeration if I suggested that before long an export of a million tons will be in sight of being effected. A million tons is a very large figure, and it is necessary to look ahead to enable it to be handled. The company has undertaken to put up reduction works and the locality of these is fixed by the agreement. It must be somewhere on the Natal main line. Without going into technical details, I understand it is expected that only a proportion of the ore will be reduced for a long time to come. The company do not bind themselves to reduce to concentrates more than a small proportion of the ore they will mine and export. We may assume that for years to come the bulk of the ore exported will be in a raw form. I believe the ore is a 55 per cent, proposition. That is to say, they can extract 55 per cent, of manganese from the raw ore. I understand that this is considerably richer than is usual. The world’s annual consumption of manganese ore is at present about 2,500,000 tons. That is likely to be largely increased in the future, but still 2,500,000 tons is a very large figure to contemplate, and to satisfy the world’s demand for that amount I have no doubt South Africa will be called upon. I believe some very large manganese fields are to be found in Russia at present, but the conditions for development there, for political and other reasons, are not favourable; so here we have in South Africa a unique opportunity, and it is intended by this agreement to take advantage of it. Assuming that within an appreciably short time a million tons of ore will be mined and exported, it will follow that it will require a hundred ships per annum each of 10,000 tons carrying capacity. It so happens that there are only two possible ports in the Union from which this ore could with advantage be exported, and those are Durban and Buffalo Harbour. The latter is 105 miles nearer to Postmasburg than Durban. So therefore my constituents—and I am frankly representing their views, as it is my duty to do—claim they are entitled to the reasonable benefits arising from their geographical position with regard to the export of this raw ore. My people are very reasonable. They claim that as they do not object to Natal getting the fullest advantage of her geographical position with regard to her coal fields, etc., so in the matter of distance the people of East London are entitled to have their geographical position and their hinterland taken into consideration. Representatives of the company have visited East London, and my information is that they expressed themselves as very pleased indeed with the suitability of the Buffalo Harbour for their purposes. But since then there has been a little uneasiness with regard to the distribution of the manganese traffic for export purposes, and the uneasiness of my constituents was communicated to me. I was told repeatedly that the railway authorities were practically indifferent as to which port would be selected. They looked upon themselves as transporters—common carriers—and they were out simply to get business and trade; so long as their trains were filled it did not matter very much to them to which port they were sent. If this were so, I would tell my constituents there is no reason to worry. They want only their fair share which is due to them owing to economic considerations. I looked carefully through this agreement and I found in Clause 16 (a) that the Administration undertakes that the public tariff now in operation would continue in force, which, on the face of it, seems reasonable enough. We think that if the tariff in force at the time the agreement was signed was maintained, there is very little reason to worry, but after my interview with the Minister and the Administration, my attention was directed to summary No. 24 and the alterations to the official railway tariff book No. 14. This summary I found was published on March 8th, or rather more than a fortnight after the agreement was signed. On page 3 I find a very important alteration with regard to the tariff on manganese ore has been made. It says that up to 670 miles it is tariff No. 9, less 10 per cent.; from 671 to 740 miles, 15s. 9d. per ton, and over that tariff No. 9, less 10 per cent. That struck me as very remarkable, and I looked again at the first sentence of this alteration. I found it was to have effect on the 21st February, 1929. The agreement was signed on the 22nd, so I presume legally the new alteration would have the effect of law because it reads “The tariff now in operation.” I think all that should have been disclosed, and that it should not be due to the industry of private individuals to find out that important fact. This retrospective action calls for some inquiry, and I hope there will be some explanation. I worked out certain distances, and it appears that it is 635¼ miles from the mine to the port of Buffalo harbour, and as it is below 670 miles it will come under tariff No. 9 less 10 per cent. I worked out the distance from Durban Point and it comes to 740 miles. So we have a special tariff which gives Durban Point 15s. 9d. per ton. In my pursuit of knowledge I worked out what these tariffs would amount to, and I found that tariff No. 9 less 10 per cent, for 740 miles is 16s. 4d., that is, the normal rate if this alteration had not been made; so that the Administration arbitrarily have given this company a present of 7d. per ton in percentage. Originally Buffalo harbour had a natural advantage of 1s. per ton. The position now is that there is a difference of 5d. only between the rate from the mine to Durban Point and from the mine to Buffalo harbour, so the railways are generous in carrying ore 105 miles extra for a remuneration of 5d. Taking the one million tons as a reasonable estimate of the export in the near future, one million seven pences mean £29,000, which is a substantial concession enough for any company. It is not for me to say what is the object of the Government. I have heard some talk of the superiority of the Natal grade, 1 in 40 on the eastern system, and 1 in 80 in Natal. No one will raise a voice of protest against £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 having been spent since Union upon improving the lines in Natal, but before this was done it should be remembered that the gradient was 1 in 33, and it then carried double the present traffic on the eastern system. We hear a lot of talk about over-capitalization in connection with the electrification of the Natal line, and the necessity for its carrying a bigger traffic. Let us remember that the Union railways have to be treated as a whole. What does it matter to the Administration if it makes up its compensation for electrification overhead charges on some of the other lines? I hope the matter will be looked into fairly. The people of East London and the Border are just as much entitled to get the advantage of their geographical position as the people of Natal are entitled to enjoy the advantages in regard to their vicinity to the Transvaal and to their coal position. All we ask is that the traffic should be arranged fairly as between the two ports without tariff discrimination. I am informed that such discrimination as this is unprecedented in the railway tariff history of South Africa. If any hon. member can produce a similar instance I shall stand corrected, but I want to be assured that it is on all fours with this position. I think, as a business principle, such a position as this is unthinkable, and I do not think the Minister can claim that he is dealing fairly when he loads the dice against one port in the interests of another. Surely it is to the advantage of the Government that the whole Union should share in any prosperity that might happen. We do not want lop-sided discrimination; we want the whole country to go ahead.

How are you going to load your ships?

Shipping people who have visited Buffalo Harbour are most favourably impressed with the sound facilities provided there. This clause 16 provides that the rates cannot be increased for a period of ten years, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister decreasing them, and I hope he will carefully consider making a proportionate decrease in regard to Buffalo Harbour in the same way as he has done in the case of Durban Point. Every day throughout the year I am told an average of 50 or more empty trucks are sent down to East London to carry away the import traffic. Surely it is a business principle that these trucks should be utilised for carrying down profitable traffic such as manganese instead of running empty. I think it is a pity that this matter was not discussed before. If there was no time to embody it in the agreement, I should have preferred that the Minister should have been more open with the House.

I gave you the information you asked for at once.

You did not give the House the information.

I do think that in a very important matter like this, involving approximately a sum of £29,000 per annum in favour of one port, the Ministers should have considered it of sufficient importance to inform the House when introducing this Bill. I do not think he was quite fair in telling me that the Administration was not particularly interested in the route taken for the raw ore. Furthermore I do not think that it is either reasonable or just to make this discrimination. No doubt there is an explanation of it, but I am a little bit worried about it. If this is, as I am informed, unprecedented, it may become a principle which may be adopted and discrimination against Algoa Bay, Mossel Bay, and even Cape Town may follow. But I hope it is an absolutely exceptional case, and, if so, I feel sure I can confidently appeal to the Minister to take such steps as will remedy the matter. I do not ask that the rates to Durban should be raised, but there is nothing in the agreement to prevent a reduction in the rates to Buffalo harbour. Surely the Minister has no desire to penalize one part of the country in this respect. I should be glad to hear from the Minister that he understands the very natural feeling of those concerned with Buffalo harbour, and I am sure that when he realizes what important interests are involved, and how unjust his proposals are, he will take an early opportunity of rectifying the matter.

As regards this Bill I shall confine myself particularly to Clause 2 which concerns the deviation of the railway line Sterkstroom to Maclear at Dordrecht. It is a matter about which the public of Dordrecht have already been agitating for the last 25 years, and I must say I am pleased, and I am grateful to the Minister of Railways and the Railway Board that at last it has now reached the stage that we have a Bill before the House in which this deviation is included. Perhaps it is not generally known that the first part of the line from Sterkstroom to Indwe, 66 miles, was built by a private company with the object of working the coal and other minerals in the district and of laying out a township, which is now called Indwe. For some inexplicable reason the railway at that time was laid three miles away from Dordrecht. I say for an inexplicable reason because the lie and the state of the ground simply naturally suggest the route now proposed. Why it was not adopted at that time we cannot understand. In 1900 by virtue of Act No. 19 the private line was taken over by the Cape Government Railways, and subsequently the line was extended from Indwe to Maclear. Dordrecht is situated in the stretch between Sterkstroom and Indwe, about 42 miles from Sterkstroom, and the inconvenience we suffer in consequence is great. It is an extraordinary cold part, and most of the passenger trains (it is remarkable) arrive and depart at night, whereby the general public, and more particularly the women and children, run great risks to their health. We have striven and agitated and made representations to successive governments to bring the railway to the village, but nothing has ever come of it. All those years representations were made at public meetings and delegates were sent to successive railway Ministers. Since 1896 all the Ministers of Railways have no doubt had deputations from Dordrecht. A person who doubtless served on all the deputations was Mr. Fish, some years ago mayor of Cape Town, and at that time a resident of Dordrecht. He worked hard and enthusiastically for the cause, and we are to a great extent indebted to him for the stage we have reached to-day in having a Bill before the House to authorize the deviation. He also has good reasons to be so enthusiastic about the building of the line. As I have said the trains arrive at night, and a few years ago he had to enter the town by cart on a dark night and was upset and broke his leg. This increased his zeal and he was one of the leaders of the deputations to the Ministers. Promises have been made but something has always happened to prevent their fulfilment until finally, when the Louis Trichardt scheme was authorized to be put before Parliament, the residents of Dordrecht felt that the Railway Department could no longer refuse to grant their deviation as well, and to treat it on the same lines as Louis Trichardt. They made it known that they also accepted the same conditions as Louis Trichardt. We therefore bind ourselves to the stipulations laid down in the report of the Railway Board, in other words it will not cost the country a penny. The capital expenditure will be paid by us by way of an increase in the tariff rates, and therefore I have no hesitation in appealing to hon. members of the House to support us in regard to the deviation. The public bodies of Dordrecht, the divisional council, municipality and farmers association have all undertaken in writing, in so far as they can bind the public, to agree to this and to submit themselves to the increased rate which is mentioned in the report of the Railway Board, I am very pleased, and I think I can speak for my constituents, that the time has finally come for us to expect the long-delayed deviation which will supply a great need and which will mean great facilities to the residents of Dordrecht. It will not cost the State a penny; the residents of Dordrecht are willing to pay the increased rate.

I am prepared to support the construction of a railway from Koopmansfontein to Postmasburg, but I wish to ask the Minister what he means by reducing the rate, which seems to have been done in rather a strange fashion.

No.

Why was the rate reduced from 16s. 4d. to 15s. 9d. for distances from 671 to 740 miles?

The reduction in the railway rate is part of the contract, and it has been publicly announced.

The reduction was effective from February 21, but the agreement was not signed until February 22. Why is the rate to Buffalo Harbour left at the old figure?

The company pressed very strongly for the rate to Durban to be the same as the rate to East London. We informed the company that we could not do that, and we do not now penalize East London in any way. We agreed to a reduction in the rate to Durban as part of the agreement. This was disclosed to the public in the ordinary way. All tariff alterations are published every fourteen days. When my hon. friend approached me on the subject Iat once gave him the information asked for. We had no reason whatsoever in keeping the reduction from the public. The rate was 16s. 4d.—it is now 15s. 9d. We have a flat rate to the ports for all shipment maize.

Why could you not have made the same reduction to other ports, especially to East London? So far as the company was concerned it would not have made the slightest difference.

Why should we surrender revenue?

Why should you differentiate?

The company wanted it. The company was satisfied with the rate to East London.

The Minister has no right to differentiate.

We do that in regard to maize.

We are talking about ore. The Minister has done wrong in this matter. He has done a grave injustice and he has no right to differentiate as between the two ports.

I have not penalized East London.

You have penalized East London, because you have not made the same reduction to that port as you have made to Durban. It is not fair, it is not just. We know the fierce competition there is between the various ports. There is only one way to manage things in my opinion, and that is to put them on a footing of absolute equality.

Are you advancing an argument for a flat rate?

I am advancing an argument for equal treatment of all ports in accordance with the reduction you have made to Durban. It is a very strange thing that this was not revealed in the agreement. I looked out for this, because I knew it was coming, but not a word was said. I want to refer to this Gobabis line. I see the Minister is extending the line from Witvlei to Gobabis, and I would like some information. The interest is already guaranteed on the line to Witvlei and then they have also guaranteed the interest on these developments at Walvis Bay harbour. What is the total liability of the South West Africa Administration at the present time? I think the House would like to know. Then I want to make some remarks with reference to the Sea Point line. Of course the loss is serious. I quite admit that, and I think my hon. friend is perfectly justified in the action he has taken. I certainly agreed to the making of this line, but what took place afterwards was this. I had it from Dr. van der Byl himself, that he advised against the electrification of that line. He told me the department had carried out the electrification against his advice. You dropped the electrification of the docks line; why did you not drop the other as well? I can certainly discharge my responsibility seeing you had this direct advice from Dr. van der Byl. In regard to the Electricity Commission, why should the public and the railways pay these enormous costs? Why should you not appoint a strong commission to go into these costs, which are far in excess of what we were told would be the case. It is the duty of the Government not to let things slide but to appoint the strongest commission they can get and ascertain the reasons why the costs of running this show are so very much higher than was expected.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has spoken as if Buffalo is the only port for Kimberley, but Algoa Bay is 120 miles nearer Kimberley than Durban is, and when the claim is made regarding geographical position it is Algoa Bay which has it. Although there is the handicap of lighters at Algoa Bay, the Minister knows that large shipments come from the Belgian Congo and are shipped at Algoa Bay. Shippers will have to decide from which port the ore is to go, and as the Belgian shippers choose Algoa Bay, the shippers of this manganese ore may also choose the same port. This change in the tariff was deliberately made to make the mileage cover Durban. The Minister can give Durban that rate, but similar proportionate reductions should be given to the other ports. All we ask is that a fair chance should be given, and we call upon the Minister to remove that unfairness.

In connection with the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down, I can show that the tariffs in the contract are arranged according to the wishes of the company. This is not the only case where the one harbour is preferred to the other. The railway tariffs in tariff classes I to VI are exactly the same from Germiston to Durban and East London, and that although the respective distances are 470 and 658 miles. In this case East London is preferred to Durban. In connection with the proposed line to the manganese fields I want to draw attention to the fact that during the last two years a great number of companies have been to see the Minister, the Railway Board, and the Government, to ask for the building of a line to the manganese fields. Already at that time it was known that the Postmasburg fields will probably be the biggest in the world, and that the nature of manganese facilitates transport. The Minister is convinced that this line will pay, and that the possibilities of the manganese fields are very great indeed. Thus I consider it a wrong step to insist that the company must provide the money for the building of the line. The Government ought to be ready to build the line so that all the companies can have a chance of working ground, because the present contract might lead to a strong monopoly. The company with whom the contract has been made has an interest in a certain corner of the manganese-bearing ground, and the line will be built to a certain point which will be advantageous to them. Other companies who have ground 20 or 30 miles from the point will, according to the contract, have to take upon themselves half the obligation if they want to transport manganese by the railway. There are to-day several companies who are on the point of working the manganese, but do not want to risk it because then they will be subject to the extremely heavy obligations of the contract. The obligations are explained in Clause 15. [Clause read]. They amount to a capital sum of £310,000, andin addition the possible losses on the line, and this is a heavy burden on the shoulders of the other companies. The Minister knows that other railways can be built which will cost less. One to the middle of the manganese fields, and which will then turn to the right and left, will only cost about £200,000. It is a peculiar method to adopt to put obligations on the companies when the railways are a State monopoly. It is a pity that the contract has not been referred to a select committee to see how far other interests are involved, because it is beyond doubt that the other companies will be hampered by the regulations.