I move—

seconded.

I understood that on Friday evenings we simply sat on until a motion for the adjournment of the House was agreed to. Shall we be sitting to-night?

I hope not.

If we sit on to-night without adjourning at 6 o’clock, we will have to adjourn under the Standing Order at 10.55 p.m.

I move—

On the 15th instant I tabled a question to the hon. the Minister of Finance asking whether he has been approached by the Johannesburg Hospital for a grant towards the cancer radium fund now being raised by that hospital, and, if so, with what result; and, if not, (2) whether, in view of the fact that money is badly and urgently required for the purpose of cancer research and the alleviation and the eradication of the disease, which is a national matter, the Government is prepared to, and will, make a grant for the said fund; and, if so, of how much. I stated in the question that this is a national matter. I lay stress on those words. The answer to the first part of the question was in the negative. The answer to the second part of the question was a reference by the Minister to an answer given by him to Question No. XXXVII on the 1st of February, page 186 of “Hansard.” It was a question by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey), who asked the Minister of Finance whether the Government is prepared to consider the advisability of providing in the estimates or the vote-on-account a sum of money to be advanced on the £ for £ principle to the general hospitals within the Union for the purpose of radium. The Minister’s reply was that as hospitals fall under the provincial councils, it is a matter for the latter to deal with. I submit that a large number of persons who are interested in this matter agree with me that the Minister’s reply is most unsatisfactory. This is a matter which affects the whole of South Africa, and perhaps may I say the world at large. The Minister’s reply to the second part of my question and to the hon. member for Parktown is most unsatisfactory, because this is a national matter, and the Government should undertake responsibility. I happen to know that in the Transvaal several large donations have been given towards this fund. It has been held throughout the whole of the Union that this is one of the most important matters affecting the general health of the people. Hope has been expressed that if possible something might be done to combat this horrible disease. I submit that this was a fair question to bring before this House. If to-morrow a disease were to spring up amongst cattle, the hon. the Minister would readily, as has been done in the case of locusts and other pests, subscribe a certain amount. Here is a matter of national importance, and I ask the Government to take it into serious consideration. It is not right to ask the people to subscribe, and it is thought that the remedy is at hand. This is a matter of great urgency, and it is the duty of the Government, whatever amount is required for this purpose, to subscribe it. Now I want to deal with another matter. I do not want to trounce the Minister. He has got his good points, but he has certain demerits. I asked him a few days ago whether he would be good enough to take the views of the judges with regard to the question of appointing a king’s proctor, and the answer was in the negative. Some years ago I brought a Bill before the House for the abolition of trial by jury. Then the Minister of Justice, the present Senator de Wet, thought fit to take the opinion of all the judges in the Union. All I ask the Ministers to do is to take the opinions of the judges who preside over all these cases as to the advisability of appointing a King’s proctor. I know of a very serious case which has occurred in the last three or four months in which, if there had been a King’s proctor, the judgment might have been reversed. All I am concerned with is purity in the administration of justice. Should the Minister be returned to power, I will show him how he might save the country some money. We have 140 members of the House of Assembly, each drawing £700 a year, the total cost being £86,000 or more. I suggest that constituencies be made larger so that we might half the number of members we have at present. This reduced number could do all the work that is necessary in Parliament, and whichever Government comes in, it will have its docile majority, so the result would be the same as if we had a bigger House. I wish to make a final appeal to the Minister of Justice. A few weeks ago I brought to the notice of the House the case of a native woman and a white man who were charged under the Immorality Act in the Free State. The woman was sent to gaol for three months, while the man, who was the real criminal, was given only a suspended sentence. The Minister shielded himself behind the fact that they were tried by two different magistrates. If an example is to be made the white man should have been in gaol and not the native woman. It is the duty of the Minister to approach H.E. the Governor-General with a view to the woman’s immediate release.

I hope the Minister will not become irritable. If on the previous night he had shown a little courtesy to members on these benches a good deal of time would have been saved. I want to support the appeal that the Government, out of its overflowing Treasury, should supply radium to the hospitals, instead of leaving it to be provided by private charity. I wish to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to explain the position in regard to the beam wireless service. I understand that in 1924, when a Labour Government was in power in England, the British post office started its own beam wireless service, and the result of its competition was that the private wireless company was forced to reduce its rates by 4d. a word. When the Labour party left office the Conservatives came into power, and an agitation was started for the sale of the State wireless to the private company. When it appeared that the agitation was likely to be successful, the shares of the private company rose by £6,000,000 in three days. I understand it was necessary for the various dominions to give their consent to the transferance of the Government beam service to the private company. I want to know what attitude the Union Government is adopting in the matter. I also wish to refer to the present position of the Wage Board, whose determinations have been very badly handled by the Department of Labour, the result being that a very large number of determinations have been upset repeatedly by the law courts. The effect has been twofold—not only does it place in a very awkward position those employers who want to pay decent wages, but it also has a very bad effect on the employees, who do not know where they are. I think on three occasions the Minister made determinations regarding wages in the bakery trade at Johannesburg, but they were upset by the courts of law. On the fourth occasion, so I am informed, the Bakers’ Union was so exasperated that they actually communicated with the Labour Department and said in effect: “You have made such an unholy muddle of the position, we should like, before you make your next determinations, to have an opportunity of seeing whether the matter is in order or not.” I believe they were given the opportunity of seeing how the determination was likely to be made. At their own expense they engaged counsel and they obtained counsel’s opinion that unless certain alterations were made in the form of the determination, the court would again upset it. The Labour Department ignored that advice, and went on its own sweet way, and again issued a determination, and that determination was for the fourth time upset. That has a very bad effect on the workers. Another case has recently arisen which affects the laundrymen of the Transvaal. A determination has been made there after a great deal of delay and a great deal of pressure from the union. I noticed in the press that after the determination was made one of the employers was prosecuted for not carrying out the determination. The matter came before the magistrate in Johannesburg, and it was adjourned at the instance of the prosecutor until the 8th of February, and I understand that another adjournment has been asked for and the prosecutor indicated that it was at the instance of the Department of Labour, which was trying to settle the matter out of court. I do not know in the first place that it is competent for the Department of Labour to interfere with the Department of Justice, but, at any rate, the position is that, as a result, I am sorry to say, of the inefficiency of some of the officials there, these determinations are continually being published and continually being upset. I know the Minister has said there is a host of lawyers working hard to upset these determinations, but surely the Minister can do the same thing, or, at any rate, he can get the best advice possible to see, before the determinations are published, that they are framed in such a way that they cannot be upset by a court of law. There is One other point in the light of the experience we have had of these wage determinations. I was a member of the select committee at the time the Wage Bill came before it, and the evidence strongly stressed the suggestion that the Wage Board should consist of a representative of the workers, a representative of the employers and an independent chairman. At that time the Federation of Industries submitted a memorandum strongly urging that view, and Mr. Andrews, the general secretary of the South African Trades Union Congress also submitted a memorandum and pressed for a similar thing. The point was put to him— would it not be better to have three independent people, and he said that three impartial people were sometimes no better than one impartial person. He suggested it would be much better to have two practical men, one representing the workers and the other the employers, so that the chairman—and no one offers a word of criticism against the present chairman of the board—having practical information from the two members, would be in a much better position to give a decision. I am not saying a word in disparagement of the other two members, but I do say in the light of the experience we have had, it seems a pity that proposal was not followed. It is true that the Minister, under the Act, has power to appoint the board in any way he likes. I think his idea was that the board should be a kind of industrial court, but so far the board has not been acting as an industrial court. I say that even at the present moment the Minister would be well-advised to definitely decide that the board should be so constituted that, in addition to the chairman, there should be a representative of the employers and one of the workers, so as to have practical men on the board who could deal with matters from the points of view of workers and employers. Finally, I do want to lodge a protest, an emphatic protest, against the manner in which this House, and members on these benches particularly, were treated the other night.

I do not think the hon. member can refer to that at present. He cannot deal with matters that occurred in another debate.

I am not going to deal with that aspect at all, but I do want to say this to the Minister: That the policy—and I am speaking of policy—of ignoring members in this House, of treating members with contempt is a policy which is likely to recoil on Parliament. We desire to see Parliament, instead of becoming a waning institution, one in which people will feel the utmost possible confidence, and they can only feel that when they realize that the private member, however humble his position, and however much the Government may be against him, has the fullest opportunity, not only of putting before Parliament the grievances and desires of the people of South Africa, but also of getting all the information he wants as if he were the most favoured supporter of the Government. I am sorry that this should not be so with a Government which contains members in its Cabinet who in the past have always fought for this principle. The Minister of Defence in particular, who seems to take very little interest in the work of Parliament at present—probably he is too busy in other directions—who have been one of the great champions of the privileges of the House and of private members, who fought in season and out of season for the fullest rights and courtesy for private members, just as he swallowed his principles, has also swallowed his passion for fighting for those rights. He must have a wonderful digestion. He seems to swallow anything, but I am afraid before long it will have a very bad effect upon him. I find that a unanimous resolution was adopted on the 29th June, 1926, by the council of South-West Africa, which, at that time, consisted of a majority of the German population, which stated—

In his reply the Prime Minister declared that he and his colleagues in the Government—which includes the Minister of Defence—could appreciate the causes of the council’s resolution, and he was prepared to fall in, as far as possible, with its wishes, and in his opinion—and I take it thereby also the Minister of Defence —the unreliable and unworthy character of this document condemned it, together with all kindred publications of the war period. Those documents were official documents of this House and of the Government of South Africa, which justified the action which, in 1914, the Government and the Parliament of South Africa took in joining in the war, at any rate, as far as South-West Africa was concerned. The Minister of Defence broke up his party on that occasion, because there were members of it who did not agree with his views, and did not want to join in the war with South-West Africa. But he said that they must join in, and that everything said by the Government was right; everything done by the Germans was wrong; and now that his party is destroyed, the documents should be consigned to the limbo of the past. Surely that is a matter on which we are entitled to have some information, and I should have imagined we would have been consulted about the matter— they are official documents which have been the record in one of the most serious crises— and that the Minister of Defence would have apologized to these men whom he expelled; at any rate, when he came to the conclusion, perhaps for political purposes, that his information was wrong, and that the other opinions were right. I hope his colleagues will convey that to him, and that he will give some reasonable explanation.

When the Minister replies, I should like him to deal with the question of the policing of the Table Bay docks. The Department of Justice decided to take away their police from the docks, and they were to be replaced by the railway police. I find that the railway police, who have to cover the whole of the Cape Town railway station, the Salt River works, the docks and every other part of railway property, are to be increased by only six persons, and, according to the replies, they are going to undertake the work which it took 24 trained Union police to do before, and naturally there is a certain amount of uneasiness in Cape Town what the effect is going to be of this very great diminution of the police protection we are to have at the docks. I would like the Acting Minister of Justice to give this hon. House some information as to what his procedure is going to be from the 1st April next, when the change, I understand, is going to take place. The police protection of the docks has been far from adequate up to the present. I do not make any complaint about their work. Traffic control at the docks, however, leaves a great deal to be desired. I understand that on the more important police duties the railway police are unable to act. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the conditions in the streets immediately surrounding the docks, which also requires some extra police supervision. At certain times, I understand, conditions there are rather notorious, and people come to the port who require a great deal of control. I suggest to the Minister that he might point out to the police authorities that not only the inside of the dock area, but immediately outside, requires a little extra supervision. The uneasiness of the people of Cape Town will be greatly allayed if the Minister can make a statement to this effect.

I want to deal with a non-political matter. The Minister of Finance told us there would be £1,000,000 for roads for the provinces. I would like to see a portfolio for roads—a Minister of Transport—which is far more important than the portfolio of labour, and several others I can mention. I feel this money will be allocated to the different provinces and frittered away, and it would be better to create a programme of national roads. Then I want to bring up the question of roads to the great national parks. I will say this for the National Government—that, although I differ from them profoundly, they have played the game to the national parks. The position in the national park is that we are making the roads inside, but we have no authority to make them outside. There is free access inside the park, but tourists cannot reach the park. I look upon this as a national matter. Tourists who come to the park are not only Transvaal citizens: a large number come up from the Cape. The position is that only with the greatest difficulty are they able to reach the borders of the park. I recommend the Minister to take this matter up, with a view to seeing whether a road cannot be built from Lydenburg and White River. If this cannot be done by the Government, it should be specially recommended for the consideration of the provincial administration. This is a dying session, and the next time we meet it will be at the hustings, and I should like to tell the Minister and hon. members on the other side that the country is seething with resentment at the shameless political bargains that are going on. This political bargaining has been going on for five years. Are we going ton with it for another five years?

Of course, for another fifteen years.

Then I shall be very sorry indeed for the country. The Government is not representative of the majority of the people. They got in by political bargaining, but I hope that South Africa will get back to the old spirit, and not carry on the Government of the country by means of political bargaining. When the hon. member for Benoni was summarily ejected from the Cabinet, we were told by the Minister of the Interior that they wanted to get rid of the socialists, but a month later a manifesto was issued by the Nationalist party in the Transvaal, calling upon them to support the socialist party. Now we find from the revelations made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that they were trying to get the support of both wings of that party. They afterwards recognized that the left wing of the Labour party were not prepared to swallow their principles.

made a remark [in audible].

I say: “A plague on both your houses.” I must say that the left wing has shown much less digestive powers. Then we have “Die Burger” coming out with big letters saying: “We have at last got rid of these socialists.” The Nationalist party have tried to make four political bargains. That is the way they got into power, and that is the only way they hope to get into power again. Has not the time arrived to stop this sort of thing? I would remind hon. members that the only really happy political time we have had was during those all-too-short years from 1910 to 1912, when the late Gen. Botha, assisted by the present Prime Minister, and practically by every Nationalist, created a great central party. That was our most peaceful and happy time. At the time that central party of moderates was formed—

What did your chief say about the party?

Let me read to the Minister what the Prime Minister said about the party, and which is more germane to the point. I have here the minutes of the conference at which the South African party was formed, and at which the present Prime Minister stated the following—

On that same platform the late President Steyn spoke as follows—in view of the spirit in which the Prime Minister is entering into this election, it is well to remind him that there was a time when his better nature supervened. The late President Steyn said—

I wonder what the late President Steyn would have said about this continual bargaining. I would like to impress upon this House and upon the country that those were the only days when there was political peace in South Africa—between the years 1910 to 1912. They were the only calm years we have had in the country. And why? Because, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has a dual nature, a mixture of good and evil. In 1911, Gen. Hentzog spoke when his better nature prevailed, a man with wide vision. If he had only adhered to that, if he had remained with us and tried to create a great nation, many of the evils which have followed and which now threaten, would have been avoided. We took the open road. What has been the result? I do want to make an appeal to the country generally. There is a spirit abroad to-day of renewed tolerance and greater friendship. I travel about a great deal, and the decent, moderate-thinking Nationalist and the decent, moderate-thinking South African party men, whether they are Dutch or English does not matter a bit, are sick and tired of these broils brought about by the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Hon. members jeer. In spite of their jeers, I repeat that there is a far better spirit abroad to-day notwithstanding these manifestoes and political bargainings. Therefore, I had hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would take a wider and a higher stand in appealing to the public than he is doing now. On this side we have been prepared, and still are prepared, to assist in creating this wider, better feeling. When I go out among the Dutch-speaking farmers, men with whom I have lived all my life, and I am told that we, sitting on this side, your own flesh and blood, are the common enemies, that we belong to a soulless party, then I ask the country is that the right spirit? Is that the way in which these quarrels will be ended, these quarrels which arose only on account of the fact that the present Prime Minister chose the wrong path. I say that until he gets back to the old road upon which Gen. Botha put us, and upon which the Prime Minister himself at one time helped to put us, we shall never be on the right road. We are not going to this election in a spirit of bargaining with people with whom we have nothing in common, but we are going to this election in the broader spirit of trying to get the whole of moderate South Africa together. I am asked who deviated from the spirit which the Prime Minister showed in 1911. Who is to blame? Have we deviated one iota from the spirit that the Prime Minister laid down in 1911? Have we not tried to keep the people together regardless of race, language or origin? We on this side of the House represent every race and every section of the people.

There are only about six of you there.

We have Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, and Dutch and English on this side. On the other side there is a party coming from a sub-division of one section of the people. Who betrayed this great spirit shown in 1911? Surely not the South African party. I am proud of the constitution of this side of the House. A watery dilution of the Labour party on that side of the House does not make it more than a sub-division of a section. Surely the Prime Minister does not think the Nationalist party represents the English-speaking people.

Do you represent the Dutch?

I represent the moderate-thinking people. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) of his Christian charity, the other day, said that I stank in the nostrils of the Dutch people, because I had betrayed their race. When the Dutch people were going through dark waters, I stuck by them, and the hon. member was in Europe. It is not the man who sticks to the narrow view who is doing the Dutch good in this country. The Prime Minister has stood as the champion of the Dutch-speaking race, but no one has done more to demoralize the Dutch people in the country than the Prime Minister by his constant quarrels. As for the Minister of Defence, if he thinks he is a representative of the English-speaking people, I will tell him that they are going to remember the unflagging zeal he displayed during the flag debate and the German treaty debate and other debates. They will show him that they do not look upon him as a fit representative. The only party that fitly and properly represents the people of this country is on this side of the House.

Racialism!

The only word you know.

Some day when the balance is struck, I am prepared to compare my conduct towards my own race with that of the Prime Minister. An hon. member raises a stupid cry of “racialism” against us. Racialism and the South African party are utterly opposed. These constant quarrels and bickerings that the Prime Minister, he and the men behind him, have sown among the Dutch-speaking race are demoralizing them. They are doing more, they are demoralizing this country. To-day many a man is seriously asking himself whether the Union was not a mistake owing to these divisions. Why? Because, owing to the Nationalist party, we are in danger of becoming a Union in name only. The only thing that his saved the Union is the work that has been done by the South African party—the only moderate party in South Africa. The Prime Minister has talked with contempt about the old Unionist party. I wish he would give us his definition of a Unionist. His definition of a Unionist is an English-speaking South African.

Nonsense!

Why this Nationalist enmity against the Unionist? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is a typical example of a Unionist. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is another example. Both have lived for years in this country, and have done as much at any rate, as any member on the other side of the House to develop South Africa and to make it their home. I have been called many names for having a broader conception of South African patriotism than have hon. members opposite, but I am prepared to stand it because ours is the proper view lof South African patriotism. I am still without a Nationalist definition of a Unionist, although I know that in the heart of the average member opposite a Unionist is simply an Englishman, and is regarded as an enemy because he is an English- speaking South African. My conception, however, of our future as a nation is one in which no one will ask whether a man is English or Dutch, but whether he is a South African. That man is not a patriot who does nothing but split the country into two hostile camps. The trouble is that the average Nationalist looks upon patriotism as something which attaches to the race from which he comes, whereas real patriotism attaches to the soil from which you spring. South African patriotism has nothing to do with race, but with the soil. When the British have gone to war, it has not been to defend a particular race—English, Scotch, Irish or Welsh—but to defend the country of their forefathers and of their children. In the last 15 years South Africa has gone through very great crises, and every time when the South African youth should have flocked to the defence of their country—I am saying it in no belittling sense—the Nationalist conception of patriotism was to calculate whether these mighty troubles affected their particular interest, and not how it affected their country. It is a fundamental difference in conception which I am trying to explain, so that we might meet on common ground. When, during the Great War, great military expeditions left South Africa for all parts of the world, our Nationalist friends hung back, not from lack of courage, but because they hold a different conception of South African patriotism, and their patriotism attaches to the section of the population to which they belong, and not to the country to which they belong.

Their patriotism is not less than yours.

Oh no, I am not going to say that their patriotism is less sincere than mine, but they have a different brand of patriotism, and it attaches only to the race from which they sprang. Our patriotism should attach to all races in this country. We look upon every man as good a citizen as the next man.

So do we.

No. The average Nationalist in all sincerity looks on himself as par excellence a better South African than the rest.

These remarks of the hon. member might be appropriate on a platform outside the House, but not here.

May I submit that in this, the most important assembly in the country, I am saying what I hold as a creed—something more than a political belief. It is a creed for which I have been suffering and working for 17 years. I was charged the other day with being a traitor to my race by the hon. and reverend member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen).

That is all the more reason why the hon. member should not reply to that in this debate.

Am I not entitled to defend myself and show my conception of patriotism?

The hon. member knows that he cannot reply to what has been said in a previous debate in the same session. It is very unusual on a third reading debate to travel so very wide.

But I do feel that it is a matter of very serious importance to the people of this country that the views I have expressed should be expressed in Parliament, and not merely be looked upon as a matter of the hustings. I know this does not appeal to the Labour members, because they do not understand. Politically they are aliens. What I have said this afternoon is an echo of what a very large number of people are thinking. The next time we meet will be at Philippi, and I make this final appeal. I do think it is necessary to make an earnest appeal to members, more particularly in this House. It is only these members who are keeping the embers alive. It is much more necessary to make it to the Nationalist members than to the rank and file of the Nationalists. For that reason I have spoken as I have, and I do hope it will not be looked upon as mere electioneering. It is an expression of what I deeply feel as a South African, and as a Dutch-speaking South African who has watched with growing apprehension this increasing demoralization which is taking place, and that being the case I am sorry to see it is met with ribald laughter from that side. I think the rank and file of the Nationalist party, at any rate, will be able to say they share my views, because it is a serious thing when we find their representatives treating a serious subject in this way.

After listening to the hon. member’s speech I think we shall come to the conclusion that when we meet again at Philippi he is going to lose Philippi. It appears to me he is going to fall on his own sword at Philippi. The hon. member got up to preach peace. It is the most extraordinary peace speech that I ever heard in my life. I believe he means peace. He knows, taking ordinary risks as they are, that his party cannot come back at the next election, and the hon. member knows that the party on the other side cannot come back at the next election. There will be a stalemate at the next election and the hon. member is now making room for a third party. I wish him luck. I agree with him that the party he has been talking about would be an excellent party. I do not want to discuss the South African party. I could tell him a lot of things about the South African party.

It is the only party you have not belonged to yet.

I only want to tell him this: His leader has also made friends with all parties. The hon. member must remember that his leader came to us and asked us to join his Cabinet, and the Minister of Defence would have joined his Cabinet if it had not been for us.

That is not fair.

I do not know what the hon. member means by “not fair.” If I had to provide a breakfast for the hon. gentleman I would go outside and dig him a carrot. The hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) forgets that his leader has also done it, and it has been done in all political parties and will be done in all political parties. That is the trouble about it, that in this country, a small country, we have so many parties. The thing is absurd. There is only room for two parties in South Africa; that is, Labour against the rest. The time is coming when our friends on both sides will join hands. I agree with the hon. member. Then South Africa will go ahead. You will have a conservative government ruling this country, perhaps for ten years, followed by a labour government. A large number of members on the other side will never come back, because they got back in the same way as a large number of men got back after the civil war in America. For three decades it lasted and in South Africa we have just come to the end of the third decade. Those men are doomed. Those members who came back on that cry are doomed in this country. They do not know it, but they are. In a few year’s time men will only be returned to Parliament on a question of economics, and thousands of Dutch-speaking people in the countryside will go to the Labour party; the richer class will go to the other party. But I do take exception to the hon. member’s saying that the Labour party are political aliens in South Africa. May I remind him that he and I were born in the same town and my family crossed the Orange River 20 years before his did. So he must not tell me I am not a good South African.

I say it is an alien spirit.

The hon. member knows that is not true.

I am not talking of you; I am talking of the Labour party.

That is a very cheap thing for the hon. member to say. I agree with the hon. member, but he is wrong when he says there is no combination in the Nationalist party between Dutch and English. He forgets that the Nationalist party is dominated to-day by an Englishman, or a so-called Englishman, the Minister of Defence. The Minister of Defence is dominating that party to-day, and you have the Dutch-speaking people of the Free State and the Transvaal going to hi mand saying “Oh please tell us who to put up for Parliament.” Even the Prime Minister, the great son of the Free State, has no say in the Free State as to who he shall put in the Cabinet. The Minister of Defence is like the man who was glad he was hollow because he could swallow anything. The Minister has swallowed his principles, and for that he is allowed to dictate to the Nationalist party throughout South Africa who shall be their candidates, both English and Dutch, both Nationalist and so-called Labour. He has done a wonderful thing. There are not only English in the party, but there is an Englishman ruling the party. That is why I always take off my hat to an Englishman. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) must not go round telling these stories, because we know too much about it. I am going to ask the Minister of Labour how he came to say that in my constituency the Wage Act was not being applied on the farms. From what I know of the Minister, he will not say a thing which is not right, so he has been misinformed. One of my constituents to-day wants to build a small shed out of bricks to house pigs, and he has to pay the standard rate of wage of the Wage Board of 3s. 6d. per day. My hon. friend from Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) made himself very foolish the other day when he started saying that there were 1,000 natives a week coming into Bloemfontein, which means 52,000 a year, and I said it was not so; it is quite untrue. He did not withdraw it. If we are going to fight clean, stick to what is true. I am in favour of taking the Wage Board to the countryside, but my constituents are not, and are grumbling about it. My Nationalist friends say that now they will not vote for me. I have effectively lost the Nationalist vote because the Minister has applied the Wage Board to my constituency. I would like to ask the Minister of Defence about a number of working class young men who are called up for enrolment, while other men are not. The former have to do the job. In Bloemfontein we have an artillery force, and these young men cannot play cricket or football on Saturday afternoons. They are poor lads, but a number of the richer class are not called up.

They are all registered.

But they are never called up. How is it that a certain section of the population gets away with it? They do. I want to ask the Minister who has taken the place of the Prime Minister, and I hope one day he will be the Prime Minister—I am referring to the Minister of Finance—why did you appoint Mr. Smit as Administrator of the Transvaal? He is not a clever man, and he has not a wonderful record. You have better men sitting on that side of the House who have done more for South Africa. I will put a brutal question; was he appointed because he is related to one of the biggest families of South Africa, or is it because of his brains? I sat with him in the House, and I never thought he had any brains. Look what he has done up there; he first refused to take the oath, and then he takes the oath; he makes the people of South Africa look stupid. If we must have an administrator, let us have men like Mr. Wilcocks. Mr. Grobler, Sir Cornelius Wessels, or Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr. I would have liked to ask the Prime Minister, but he is not here, what is the position in South West Africa to-day. I am told it is not too good, and that the feeling between the German and the Dutch-speaking people is bad. When I was a young man in Parliament 20 years ago, I was fighting very hard—a thing that has never been forgiven me—for the rights of English children to learn their lessons in their own language, and I was told by the Prime Minister that everybody must learn in their own language; but the very Government that preached that and has brought it prominently before South Africa is refusing that to the Germans in South West Africa, and we find the Nationalists in South West Africa voting down the Germans on their own language. Why is that? The argument is that there are two official languages in South Africa—which I favour. But why do you not give these people in South West Africa three official languages? Why should it be the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa who refuse to give these rights to the Germans? It is a question which must be raised in this country whether we as a mandatory power are doing right that these people there should not have their language, seeing that we have two official languages in South Africa. The Minister of Finance need not look so serious and cross about it; I am trying to help him. I want to ask the Minister of Defence: a statement has been made by my hon. friend here (Mr. Kentridge) that the Minister, as one of the Government, burnt the blue book to which the Germans took exception— the one issued by the Union Government showing why we went to war with the Germans in German South West Africa.

I have heard nothing about it.

There is such a lot the Minister has heard nothing about; he was so busy outside destroying his party that he did not hear of so many things.

It is a yard.

I would be glad to hear it is. The council of South West Africa agreed to the following—[resolution read, quoted by Mr. Kentridge, ante]. Do I understand that the book was burnt? Somebody must know something about it. I remember the resolution being passed in the German house in South West, because that is the document on which the Minister of Defence broke his party up. I suppose he will burn his manifestos a bit later. I was on your side, but I found you out, I want to have a few words with the Minister of the Interior. I want to ask him why he behaved to me like he did the other night. I have always been courteous to him, and have never said anything wrong about him. I would not do such a thing. I asked him a question the other night about plague in the Free State, because the people there are getting restless, because we have pneumonic plague in my constituency and in other constituencies, but the Minister never opened his mouth. He refused to say a word. This afternoon, right out of order—

Order. If it were out of order, it would have been ruled out of order.

I apologise for that statement, The Minister gets up this afternoon and, in reply to a question put by an hon. member, he gave a full answer. But he does not say a word to me. Is that right or fair? I also represent a Free State constituency, a constituency where there is plague, and which is rather anxious, and yet I am treated like this. The hon. Minister may smile, but, as I said yesterday, he smiles because he cannot blush. He may smile, but this matter affects my constituents and the privileges of Parliament. When an hon. member asks a question, it is the duty of Ministers to answer them in a decent way. I am now going to ask the Minister of the Interior whether he will make a fuller statement about this plague, and tell us what is happening in regard to these rats that are infected with pneumonic plague. Does he know that this House in which we are sitting is full of rats who have ratted from their principles? I do not mean that type of human rat the Minister is thinking about.

The hon. member must not make such a statement.

While I was speaking the other night a rat ran across the floor of this House.

The hon. member was not referring to that.

I was referring to that.

The hon. member was referring to human rats in the House.

I was not referring to human rats in the House. I want to carry on with my speech, and bring to the notice of hon. members that this House is full of rats, and that one ran across the floor the other night.

Was there a division on?

This is no joke. I want to warn the Minister that the whole country is infected by these rats, and is in danger of plague. When you can find rats in this Assembly, in the Town Hall here and in every other town, it shows that the health authorities are not doing their duty properly. It is very likely that Providence sent that rat into this House to show we are not doing what we should do. I am not afraid of bubonic plague, but I am afraid of pneumonic plague. Yet when an hon. member asks the hon. the Minister about it, he does not say a single word. Will he tell the country how far Doctor Riley, who came out from England to investigate the South African rat flea, has proceeded in his investigations. I have found out that this flea, after jumping off a rat, can live for about four months after getting on to another rat. How far has Doctor Riley been able to find out about this? I put this matter to tire Minister last year, and he promised to make a statement, but did not do so. Will he do so now? If he does not do so, I shall move the adjournment of the House to draw attention to the fact that the Government is trifling with the question of plague. Hon. members may think I am joking, but I am not. A large number of us are living in fear and terror, because we have been told that we must not allow our children to walk bare-footed on the veld. If we get this plague on a farm it only kills a few, but if you get it amongst the Indians in Durban, or in the compounds in Johannesburg, you will know all about it. I ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement on this matter before the House rises.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow; put certain questions to me, and asked for information. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) also asked me a question. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) asked me some time ago whether the building industrial agreement applied to farm work. I told him that the agreement did not apply to work done on farms. The second point was whether the Wage Act applies to farms in the Bloemfontein district. He wants to know why an area of 15 miles was made for this determination in Bloemfontein. The hon. member lives in Bloemfontein, and he must know the serious trouble they had there with native labourers a few years ago.

That only affected the town.

The natives there applied for a determination to be made in respect of the unskilled workers in Bloemfontein and district. I want to ask the hon. member, if he is serious on this, whether he will take it up with the people responsible. Before the Wage Board could take action, the townspeople of Bloemfontein took a hand in the matter, led by the mayor and the editor of “The Friend.” They set up a joint committee, one of the most influential committees that has been set up in any town in South Africa.

Voluntarily?

Yes, the committee was presided over by the editor of “The Friend,” Mr. McKenzie, they had an equal number of natives and Europeans on that committee. The Europeans on that committee included representatives of the chamber of industries, the chamber of commerce, the master builders’ associations, and all the influential sections in Bloemfontein. The committee sent a request to me asking that the wages of unskilled labourers in Bloemfontein and that area should be dealt with under the Wage Board. They had tried to fix it themselves, one side suggesting 3s. 6d. and the other 3s., but as they could not come to an agreement, they asked the Wage Board to make a determination. We had intended to confine that to the municipal area, but at the request of that joint committee we made the area 15 miles from the post office.

That is where you went wrong. They are not farmers. They are townsmen.

It is the people of Bloemfontein who have handled the matter, and there are certain works and brickfields on the outskirs outside the municipality. It was represented that it would be obviously unfair competition if the determination was confined to the municipality, and if it did not apply to unskilled workers outside the municipality. We thought that argument reasonable, and we acceded to their request.

They were poking their noses into something they had no right to meddle with.

It is not correct to say that any farmer is affected. Section (1) of the Act exempts farming operations, but, of course, if a farmer starts making bricks or jam, he comes within the Act to the extent to which he engages in such work.

If he makes bricks for a cow-shed is he affected?

I have given the history of the 15 mile radius. Now, with regard to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who has spoken of the unsatisfactoriness of a wage determination being upset. I agree. No determination has been made under my authority that has not first of all been submitted to the Government law advisers. The case he quoted, where a certain council took legal advice and submitted it to me or to the Department, and pointed out that if certain things were done it would be ultra vires—that is not correct. What they did was to submit a statement to me on certain points, but not one of those points were points that were affected by the later Court decisions. It has been admitted that not a single point on which the determination had been upset was drawn attention to. The baking industry of the Witwatersrand is governed by an industrial agreement. Certain employers were evading the agreement, and the council asked for a determination in order to cover up the defects. We made a determination and it was upset because it was said that another month should have been allowed after objections had been made. To put that right, we at once republished the recommendation, and gave a month for objections, and the determination was made. The court then said that we should not have published the recommendations, but that we should have gone back to the original notice, and gone through the whole thing from beginning to end. The law advisers said that was not necessary. We published it in the “Gazette” and in the “Social and Industrial Review.” The objection to the determination was upheld, though it was proved that more than a month had elapsed for objections to be received, but because the specific date was not published, it was held that the determination could not be upheld.

That was negligence, not to publish the date.

Yes, and the Department got a rap over the knuckles for it. I cannot attend to all these minor details myself. I cannot personally attend to all these minor details. We have, on the Board, a very able advocate or Chairman, and two magistrates, and in addition no determination has been gazetted without first being submitted to the Government’s law advisers. I am not a lawyer; I cannot do any more. If the law advisers say a determination is sound legally, it is not for me to say it is unsound. An army of small lawyers has now sprung up to try to find defects in this legislation. This is a new type of legislation so far as South Africa is concerned, and there are bound to be defects in it. However, we are doing our best to see that determinations are given effect to, both in the spirit and in the letter. The Wage Board has done more to uplift the workers of South Africa than has ever before been done in the history of South Africa, and I think more than in any other country in proportion to the population and the time the Wage Board has been sitting.

They have done less than they could have done if the Act had been efficiently administered.

We have administered the Act as efficiently as possible. As far as possible we give effect to the determinations so that the workers can obtain the full benefit of what the Legislature has given them.

During the Budget debate I quoted certain figures to show that our expenses were growing at a greater rate than our income. I now wish to repeat my argument with regard to farmers’ incomes. I call attention to the figures I gave before. Our national taxable income in 1925 was £85,800,000, but it dropped in 1928 to £81,900,000. That is a decrease of five per cent. On the other hand, the taxable income of trades and industries rose from £20,800,000 to £21,300,000—a growth of 2½ per cent. Conversely, farmers’ incomes dropped from £6,066,000 to £3,800,000—a decrease of 40 per cent. In the previous year there was a drop of 30 per cent. Surely the Minister is not going to argue that the decreases in the amount of income tax paid by farmers are due to the abatements, because the income tax of trades and industries have risen 2½ per cent, notwithstanding the abatements. Therefore you must look to other causes for the decrease in farmers’ incomes. My contention is that these other causes are the present industrial policy of the Government. That policy has increased the manufacturing industries or the country, but at the same time it has adversely affected agriculture. It has raised wages, increased costs of production by high tariffs, all of which are handed back to the farm, thus lessening two profits and making proposition more difficult. The Government is asking the country to give it a mandate for a further period of five years. I wonder if the farmers will endorse a policy which has had an effect which my figures have shown. I will proceed with my remarks when the new Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who is now carrying on a conversation with the present Minister of Finance, has had the courtesy to resume his own seat. If you want to prophesy as to the future, you must study the history of the past.

Your figures are hopelessly wrong.

Forty, fifty and sixty years ago the most prosperous country in the world from an agricultural point of view was the United States. Since then it has developed on industrial lines, with the result that the workers go to their jobs in motor cars and that America enjoys a higher wage standard and a higher standard of living than any other country. But where is agriculture? So bad are things from an agricultural point of view in the United States that a Government commission is now trying to find some means of restoring prosperity to the agriculturists. In England thirty or forty years ago the aristocrats were the landed proprietors, but they are leaving the land to-day, because it is impossible to make farming pay owing to the industrial policy. Not only have farmers suffered in England and America, but also in Australia where, owing to the high wages and the high cost of production, the lot of the agriculturist is parlous indeed. This last is a statement made by a Labour member of the English House of Commons, Dr. Haden Guest, after a visit to Australia when he had personally investigated the position. If the country is going to endorse this policy of high wages, high protection and high production costs, there is only one community on which it will come back, and that is the agricultural community.

Did you vote for the minimum wage of 10s.?

The hon. member is not going to side-track the thing like that. His constituents do not take the same view as he does. Farmers are desperately anxious about this, whether Nationalist or South African party farmers. They are alarmed at the way the Labour section of the Pact is administering this policy. We are going to sink further into deep waters if we permit another five years of the same policy. I do not believe the country will pay the price if it realizes where we are going to drift to in the end. You cannot escape the lessons of history. The Minister of Labour said we had gone farther than any other country, in the matter of wage legislation. They cannot say they were not warned. We have warned them time after time of the dangers of the course they are taking. The blame is going to rest very largely on those who, instead of showing a stern front and saying they were not going to pay this price meekly submitted in order to retain their Ministers on those front benches. In the next five years we are going to feel it much more than to-day.

Are wages too high?

Of course the standard set by the Wages Board is higher than in any other country in the world excepting America. This is my last say in this session on this matter, and I hope the farmers will listen and realize what this policy means. I do think the Minister, with his overflowing treasury, would not be going too far if he were to re-introduce the bounty on the export of meat. I believe he has said it is uneconomical. There is no export at the moment. If he put £12,000 or £15,000 on the estimates and it did no good, and did not result in re-starting export, it would not be spent and it would remain to his credit. If it was made available and advantage was taken of it, it would be money well spent indeed, and it is something the farmers have a right to ask for. In regard to the Wage Act, because the Bloemfontein Municipality asked that the Wage Act should be extended for 15 miles round Bloemfontein, where was the necessity for the Minister to agree to that? No, the Minister is “white-anting the agricultural industry as fast as he can, and I do say it is time the farmers stopped this. I see the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not here. I must say I think it is discourteous on the part of a Minister to have left the House when I told him I wanted to raise a matter relating to his department. In the circumstances. I shall have to take some other opportunity of dealing with this matter.

I have just been reading a book which shows the Minister of Labour as a very hard-working man. I see he always goes about with his shirt sleeves rolled up under his coat. He is very industrious. If he spends 10 minutes on a meal, he always gets up a 3 the next morning to make up for it. I believe the weakness of the flesh sometimes leads him to indulge in a game of bowls. I do not know whether that weakness of the flesh has induced him to leave the House during this discussion on the Part Appropriation Bill, but I should think this is the right place for him, because I have a few matters I want to address to him. If the weakness of the flesh had lured him away somewhat more frequently from that office which he adorns, there is a possibility that his department might have been more efficiently administered. We find here in to-day’s “Argus”—

One more determination upset, For these last two years this House has been asking the Minister to tighten up the machinery of his department and try and make this Wage Act function more for the benefit of industry and those engaged in industry, and the Minister has repeatedly assured us that he was taking all necessary steps, but we found him a few minutes ago pleading that, because he is not a lawyer, he cannot make his awards foolproof. I think it is time we had a Minister for Labour who is a little more foolproof than the gentleman at present carrying out those duties. This is another upset which is going to have a very disastrous effect. This award came into force last July, so that from July until the present time, 9 months almost, this thing has been in operation, and during that period those employers who did not want to pay the wages laid down did not do so. Those employers who look upon this determination with good will want to see the lot of wage earners improved by these wages but their intentions are frustrated by their unscrupulous competitors. Why has it been upset? Has there been some very abstruse, difficult, legal clause which it is impossible to interpret, and has there been some conspiracy on the part of those who try to defeat the Act? Not at all; the reason is, that wage determination is essentially a matter of public interest and the very widest publicity, according to the provisions of the Act and the statement of the magistrate, should be given of the notices under the Act; they should be published in a “newspaper” in the common interpretation of the term, and be considered that the “Social and Industrial Review” is not such a newspaper. Because of that foolish and childish oversight, not only this determination, but also every other one that has been ratified similarly, is upset in the same way. I think that bad administration, not maladministration, of good legislation merits a vote of no-confidence of this House, and there is nothing drastic enough to be said. I understand that the reason that the department and its machinery have been bungled in that fashion is because of the ignorant interference of the Minister, who would not allow the officials who are competent to do their duty without interference. I think it is time that some of these gentlemen who have established a reputation of being efficient ministers, were actually called to account and to task, and asked to give some real account to the public from the inside how these departments are carrying out the duties with which they are charged. Then the Chief Inspector of Labour whose salary is something like £1,000 per year, paid by the taxpayer; it is within my knowledge, has been regularly attending political meetings, backing those supporting his master and wrecking those in opposition, and that is why a great deal of slackness has crept into the department. This award was made in July, and the Chief Inspector of white labour was rather prominent then at a very stormy political meeting at Pretoria. He would have been better occupied seeing to the interests of those workers. It is time that the Labour party and the people who believe there should be a Labour party, and that Labour legislation can be useful, should demand that a Minister who has been chosen as the most efficient to step into the Treasury benches, should give a real account of how his department is carried on. There is another little item here which affects him, not directly, but indirectly. When members of the Labour party wanted to know why a Labour man should take the portfolio of Defence we were told that he (the member for Denver) would be in a position to keep his eye on, and be au fait with all these questions in which labour is interested. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said it was the easiest job in South Africa, and that is so. We find a wire sent to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) which mentions the name of a first class buffet of Johannesburg, right in the centre of the city, which states—

This is a matter which arises out of the new Liquor Act. The Minister of Justice laid it down that it was within his power to exempt certain areas where the serving of liquor by Asiatics is prohibited. The Transvaal was not exempted, but has been exempted now, I understand, on the authority of the Acting Minister of Justice. I do not want to pillory the act of the Minister, but he should have had the advice of the Labour members of the Cabinet, and they should have strongly advised him against this. They are aware of the circumstances and of the consequences to white workers. You have on the Witwatersrand an institution taken over by the Government—the Witwatersrand Technical Institute—which undertakes amongst other vocational education to train pupils in catering, cooking and so forth. Many of them have been absorbed in Government service, but if this new principle is going to be carried on, they will not continue these classes. The complaint is made that not sufficient white boys are offering. What is the inducement, I ask, for them to take on that profession when, by the stroke of a pen, the only place in the whole of the Union where there is any possible likelihood of white labour being employed, is closed to them, and their chances thrown away like that? The only other place is the railways, and the inducement offered by the Railway Department is not such as to tempt them to take up this profession at all. This is very important. Every avenue of employment which can be explored and developed in order to absorb our white youth should be taken advantage of. There is another matter I want to ask the Minister about, which also refers to the portfolio of Labour. I refer to the Hartebeestpoort area. I think the time has come when the House should be informed as to whether this area is a success or a non-success in regard to the Labour Department’s administration there. In the pages of the “Social and Industrial Review” we have been led to believe that everything was going on well, and that what was wilderness was being turned into a fruitful garden, and that the national purse was not being encroached upon to that end. I have assisted in spreading these reports, because at the time I read them I believed they were true. But since then I have spent a lot of time there, and I can tell the House that there is quite another side to the picture. I put a question to the Minister of Labour early in the session, but the Minister did not give a reply, but laid certain information on the Table. I shall follow this matter up later in the country. On two farms in that area, which the Government took on lease for a period of six years,, the respective valuation was £6,200 and £38,000. I did not know that these farms were worth so much, but I do know of many people who say that they were certainly not worth that amount. The introduction of water as a result of irrigation has, of course, made many farms more valuable, but I submit that £38,000 is a very big figure for a 3,500 morgen farm unimproved. In the “Social and Industrial Review” of January, 1926, it was announced in connection with these farms that pagter trainee applicants who desired to become settlers, a man and his wife was required to sign a form of undertaking agreeing to obey the instructions of the welfare officer, and also authorise the Department of Labour to hold in trust on their behalf any funds which might accrue in respect of produce, etc., and that each individual would be credited with the amount realized on his account; also that each man would be charged with the proportionate rental of his farm plot. We were told that these people were put there to be given a chance, but I want to know what chance have they had? In the same magazine to which I have referred, in May, 1927, particulars of the sales of tobacco were given, totalling not £3,000, as was successively estimated for four months, but £392. That applied to a farm with a cultivable area of only 240 morgen. I find that in regard to the sale of tobacco in the Hartebeestepoort area generally it realized 6½d. per lb., but the tobacco sold co-operatively from the Labour farms realized an average of only 1.87d. per lb. I am told by the Departmental Magazine that the price obtained for the cured tobacco went up to as much as 11½d. per lb. The Minister stated that he had 9,000 lbs. of this class for sale from one farm alone, equalling £430.

What about Doornkop?

This is more tragic than Dóornkop. One farm was leased for six years at £450 per annum, but a sum of £3,740 was spent upon material alone, and £1,400 in wages. That is a specimen of the kind of business carried on by the Labour Department.

Whose farm was it?

I do not know, but I would like to know. The value of this farm is stated to be £6,200. It is taken on a six-year lease without option of purchase, but with an option of extension of three years when improvements become the property of the owner. Of 1,000 morgen extent only 240 morgen is cultivable so that, up-to-date, on buildings only, over £5,000 has been spent on a £6,000 farm of 240 morgen. Other and even more expensive operations must have yet further taxed the Department to improve this property and no consideration for all this is provided in the terms of lease. But who is to pay? In a question I put to the Minister I asked who was to reimburse the Government? In reply he said that “The amounts are included in the advances made to trainees and are repayable by the individual trainees concerned. In view of the compulsory undertaking that the department shall be authorised to act as trustee for funds accruing to trainees for crops sold, and of the failure to secure prices for those crops, and further of the heavy liabilities with which the workers are saddled for repayments for improvements to other people’s property. I want to know how it can be claimed that they are given a chance. We see from the “Review” that of the original 556 trainees only 125 remain. Where, and why, have the others gone? I know that they have not all gone out to purchase farms under the Government Land Settlement Act. I am sorry the Minister was not here to hear what I had to say about his department, but now that he has returned to the House I trust he will make himself acquainted with the matters I have referred to, and I trust that the Government will deem them sufficiently serious to be enquired into. This is a very important portfolio, this portfolio of Labour, and enquiries should be made to ascertain whether there is inefficiency, and if this inefficiency is due to permanent officials who are drawing good salaries, interesting themselves much more in furthering the political interests of their master, than the interests of the department and the taxpayer —

Who do you refer to?

If the hon. Minister had been here he would have heard.

I am sorry.

I suppose the hon. the Minister was receiving a trades union deputation, a much more important duty! It reminds me of the “trades union” meeting held in Johannesburg. It was going to be a big meeting. It was at the headquarters of what is known as the Creswell party, and they were to pass a resolution that if the South African Railway Administration did anything inimical to the strikers in Rhodesia, the three Labour men would be withdrawn from the Cabinet. This special meeting was where John Duthie was going to speak, and although it had been boomed and advertised for days in the daily press. Ten people turned up. Three were the speakers and at least four went to heckle.

It is all very interesting, but I do not think it has anything to do with the motion under discussion.

The absence of the Minister—

I was having a cup of tea.

It is really pathetic when Ministers are wrenched away from their duties in the House by these very inconsiderate trade unionists. Coming to another matter, I want to try to get some information regarding the surrender by the Imperial Government, and the other Dominion Governments of the control of wireless. We know how stringent the international law was with regard to the control of wireless, and I supposed that the governments concerned will make provision to take over all the wireless and control it in time of war, but six millions appreciation in three days makes one wonder what has happened. The members of this House are entitled to more detailed information on the matter. I think the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs could give us the information. Various matters have been raised by us which Ministers know are important, and Ministers are aware that they have been raised in a bona fide fashion; but seeing that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not here to answer me with regard to that matter, I beg to move—

seconded.

When the question of the, administration of justice in the Orange Free State was last brought up in the House, the Acting Minister of Justice followed the most unusual and unfair procedure of attacking me at question time, on a subject which was not even remotely connected with the question to which he was replying. By Mr. Speaker’s ruling reference to any matter which does not arise out of a Minister’s reply to a question is not permitted at question time. Yet the Minister himself, when replying to a question relating to a case of one Lourens at Hoopstad, introduced, a reference to the case of one Jensen of Ladybrand in regard to which the Minister said the grossest allegations had been made concerning the administration of justice in the Orange Free State. He went on to say that the Attorney-General of the Orange Free State instituted a civil action against Jensen—presumably for damages—and having mentioned that Jensen had sent his papers to me, the Minister said that when a subpoena was issued on time to give evidence, I “took refuge under the privileges of this House.” I ask the Minister was that fair, when one moment of enquiry would have satisfied him that I never once referred to the case of Mr. Jensen in this House. Hon. members and the public outside will be astounded to learn the real facts of the case. Mr. Jensen had been the complainant in a criminal case and he was dissatisfied with the treatment of the case by the Attorney-General of the Free State. Two years ago he wrote to me enclosing a pamphlet in which he set forth fully his complaint against the Attorney-General. At that time private members privileges had been taken away by resolution of this House and I wrote accordingly to Mr. Jensen, returning his pamphlet and advising him to complain to the Minister of Justice who, by reason of the Act of 1926, had been placed in supreme control of public prosecutions. I heard no more of the matter from Mr. Jensen, and about a year afterwards, I received a letter from attorneys Marais &de Villiers, acting for the Attorney-General of the Free State, who asked me to give evidence against Jensen. A fellow member of this House told me the Attorney-General had already sued this unfortunate man for £200 or £300, and was again suing him for a sum running into four figures—£5,000. In the first place, I had merely given a cursory look at Jensen’s complaint and I could give no intelligible evidence as to the facts, and secondly, had I been able to do so, I should have declined to betray the confidence which any man respond in me as a member of Parliament by confiding to my care a legitimate grievance, I wrote to the attorneys stating that I was unable to furnish any evidence, and that the written complaint was not in my possession. Actually, the statement of complaint had been sent in good faith by this man to the Minister of Justice and sent by the Minister of Justice to the Attorney-General, who based his cause of action upon that fact. Notwithstanding my reply, the attorneys caused me to be served with a subpoena and I applied to you, Mr. Speaker, for the usual form of indemnity stating that I was engaged in my Parliamentary duties. I put it to this House, would any honourable man haven taken any different course? Is any member of this House prepared to become the vehicle of a lawsuit against some unfortunate man who under a sense of injustice writes to him in terms which may, or may not, be actionable? But what does the Acting Minister of Justice do? After I had craved your indulgence to make a personal statement in this House, the Minister led the House to believe that this case was in some way connected with my attacks on the Attorney-General of the Free State and, in a second statement, at question time, the Minister said the Attorney-General had taken action by which the matter could be thrashed out and he said, “Here was the opportunity, if the hon. member actually believed that that was the position of the Attorney-General, to substantiate his charges.” What charges had I ever made about the case of Mr. Jensen? None whatsoever; and the Minister could have ascertained that if he had taken the trouble to enquire. The subpoena which the Minister spoke of, was served fully 12 months before I had uttered a word in this House about the Attorney-General of the Free State. To my mind, this improper view of members’ public duty is but a counterpart of the Government’s attitude towards members of this House who criticise the Government in connection with their association with the Doornkop Estates. As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to be intimidated either by the abuse, threats and misrepresentation that has been employed against me in this hon. House or by any other method which the Government may choose to adopt against me. I am not going to be deflected from my public duty, and I intend to indicate what I have demanded, and what. I consider imperatively necessary in regard to the serious cases which I have brought up in this House. After my speech in the no confidence debate I asked for a Select Committee to investigate—

1. (1) Criminal cases in which public prosecutions have been abandoned before or since the coming into operation of Act 39 of 1926. where the decision of the Attorney-General not to prosecute, has on legal grounds given rise to dissatisfaction on the part of the complainant or of the public.
2. (2) The influence which has been responsible for the refusal of the Minister of Justice or his deputies to prosecute in such cases, and
3. (3) The effect upon the morale and efficiency of public prosecutors and police of the non-prosecution of accused persons, and of the transfer or discharge of members of the Police who have been connected with such cases.

I want hon. members to bear in mind my demand for enquiry into the dissatisfaction of the complainants and public regarding the withdrawal of certain prosecutions, and the effect upon the morale of the police and public prosecutors, because I propose this afternoon to make good that demand for an inquiry. But what has been the attitude of the Minister? He said that the Government would refuse to act, or would only act if hon. members in this House brought forward definite charges of corruption. I can only say that if the Government refuses to act unless such charges are brought forward, it will display a calculated disregard of its public duty. I want to recall the Bethlehem case, in which a medical man and a native female were charged before the magistrate with an offence under the Act of 1927. The female was committed for trial, having admitted the correctness of the police evidence, but the medical man was released by order of the Attorney-General before he was even brought to preparatory examination. I have given notice of my intention to the acting Minister of Justice to deal with these matters this afternoon, and to refer to the interview which the Prime Minister had with Bethlehem residents at the Bethlehem railway station on the occasion of his last visit. Had the Prime Minister been in his place I should have asked him to state definitely whether representations of a very serious kind were not made to him by those residents when he last visited that town, and whether the statements made were not of such a serious character as to influence him to move the Attorney-General from the Free State? The acting Minister of Justice has recently said in this House that this Bethlehem case was submitted to the Minister of Justice, who is absent, and he agreed with the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute. The Minister is in Europe; but I venture to say that the statement made by the Acting Minister of Justice in this House is not based on anything in writing from the absent Minister, and rests solely on the statement made by the late Attorney-General of the Free State, and I should be glad if the Minister will tell me whether that is correct or not; in any case, whether that statement is in writing or not, it does not coincide with the terms of a letter which the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie) wrote to one of his constituents, that the absent Minister’s reply to their remonstrance was to the effect that the Attorney-General had exercised his discretion and that the Minister did not see any reason to believe that he had not done so intelligently. What I object to in the Bethlehem and other similar eases is the bad principle of allowing criminal cases to be settled out of court, and since my speech on the no-confidence debate I have drawn attention to other cases in which the prosecutions were withdrawn without any reasons being given. In regard to the Bethlehem case, I should like to ask the Prime Minister—I am sorry he is not here—whether the most serious suggestion that can be cast against the probity of a Government official was not made against the Attorney-General by the spokesman of the deputation which interviewed him at the Bloemfontein railway station and, if so, what action the Prime Minister took and whether there was any inquiry made as a result or whether the Attorney-General has demanded an enquiry. In the absence of private members’ facilities, I have on every occasion available to me urged upon the Prime Minister the need for enquiry on the lines indicated in my notice of motion, but on no occasion has he seen fit to afford facilities for discussion. I am obliged, therefore, to try now to indicate on the grounds of public interest why it is imperative that an inquiry should be held. In the Bloemfontein case every newspaper of any standing in the country has urged the necessity for an enquiry. The “Bloemfontein Friend,” edited by a public-spirited man who participates actively in the affairs of his city and province, supported an enquiry, and pointed out that a refusal to prosecute without reasons being given would provoke a condition of resentment among the police, the judiciary and uneasiness among the public. I maintain that this condition to a disquieting degree already exists. Material has come into my hands disclosing a number of cases in which the Attorney-General declined to prosecute, and did not give reasons for so doing. For many years I was employed in a magistrate’s office, and I never knew of a case in those years where the Attorney-General declined to prosecute without indicating in what respect the case was likely to fail. In one of the cases sent to me, that of one Jooste, I have before me an affidavit by a resident at Boshof who states that he remembers the accused being committed for trial on a charge of stock theft, and that on the same day he was engaged to drive the accused’s father with Attorney J. J. Scholtz to Bloemfontein, and took them to the High Court there. I am told that this man can give evidence throwing further light on the circumstances in which this journey was made. He goes on to say that about four days later the accused was released, as the Attorney-General declined to prosecute. It is true that this case occurred some little time ago, as the Minister was most careful to emphasise, but I want to point out that this case can scarcely be separated from a much more important case, that was tried as recently as November last—I refer to the case of Rex vs. Attorney J. J. Scholtz, the same man who according to my information secured the withdrawal of the prosecution against Jooste. Mr. Attorney J. J. Scholtz was practising at Boshof, and handled the affairs of several farmers in that district, including those of Mr. Van Rensburg, who could neither read nor write, though he was possessed of considerable property. At the end of his connection with Scholtz, a connection that was terminated by his discovery that Scholtz was not acting honestly, he complained to the police of having been robbed and ruined by Mr. Scholtz, and the case was taken up by the police at Boshof. At an early stage of the investigations and before a preparatory examination before the magistrate had begun, the Attorney-General called for the police file and stopped further investigation. Mr. van Rensburg appealed to the Minister of Justice, and Dr. Bok, the Secretary for Justice, replied on 25th April, 1927, in these terms—

The case was handed over to the then law adviser, Mr. Nightingale, and in his first report on this case he made this comment—

I want to emphasise this because of the more recent official attitude towards Mr. McCormick, who was zealous enough to want to reopen the investigation of the case against Scholtz. In the early stages of his investigations Mr. McCormick was advised by good authority that to overcome the difficulty of getting access to Scholtz’s books of account he could proceed under section 96 of the Act 31 of 1917, which is designed to deal with suspected persons, and to require them to divulge information, and it was also pointed out that he had the power to arbitrarily seize the books under section 49 (b) of the same Act. I want to go straight now to what the opinion of Mr. Nightingale was about Mr. Scholtz. He says—

Mr. McCormick rendered an admirable report running into 60 pages. It will surprise the members of this House to know that Mr. McCormick was not even called as a witness—the man who knew everything about the case and the books, and who could speak as to Scholtz’s attempts to deceive and mislead the prosecution. Mr. Nightingale said—

This conduct rests on van Rensburg’s statement, but the whole of the circumstances, including the inability of Scholtz to furnish true particulars after having rendered a false account, strongly corroborates van Rensburg.

Van Rensburg, in addition to appealing to the Minister of Justice, appealed to the Prime Minister and received from him a sympathetic letter, but he became impatient and by letter to the Department of Justice was threatening violence in September, 1928. According to his version a charge of stock theft had in the meantime been engineered against him upon evidence since found to be tainted by a man who had formerly been in the employ of Scholtz, with a view to discrediting him. He had been convicted, however, and fined £100, and he was vowing vengeance on Scholtz whom he threatened to shoot. At a subsequent stage the Attorney-General of the Cape favoured the granting of a pardon to van Rensburg. His threats were brought to the notice of the authorities, and it was debated whether he should be bound over to keep the peace or considered as certifiable to a mental institution. Let me emphasise that in the case of Jensen a bitter sense of injustice suffered at the hands of the Attorney-General of the O.F.S. led to his being certified as mentally unsound. This second case, that of van Rensburg, is not accidental, it merely shows the strength of the feeling of injustice on the part of two persons who, in the first instance, were peaceable, well respected right-minded men, enjoying the esteem of all who knew them. Mr. Nightingale’s proposed indictment was sent to the Attorney-General of the Free State who immediately declared that be did not consider that it disclosed a case for prosecution. He said—-

Why was it considered convenient and expedient to bold it in Bloemfontein? When the accused Scholtz arrived in Bloemfontein. I am told, and in suite of denials, witnesses are named to prove that he was met by the attorney-general at the station, that he and the attorney-general went to the same hotel, and when the case came on in Bloemfontein, as admitted by the Minister in reply to my question, the attorney-general came into court. It is also admitted in the Minister’s reply that he had no instructions to go into court, or to deal with the case. After a violent attack on van Rensburg’s credibility and character by the defence the magistrate declined to commit Scholtz for trial. The attorney-general of the Orange Free State again intimated that he declined to prosecute. Naturally van Rensburg felt dissatisfied as to the outcome, and came down to Cape Town to appeal to the Minister to retain the books until further inquiry could be made. His grievance apparently was that no evidence was taken from Mr. McCormick, because in a letter written to one of the members of the other House he said

He asked that the case should be re-opened and that he should be allowed to tender further evidence, but when I put this request to the Acting Minister in the form of a question he declined most definitely. I want to refer to a very important part of the record that has been placed at my disposal. We find in the Minister’s file, to which I have had access, a letter from the same gentlemen, Marais and de Villiers, who acted as the attorney-general’s attorneys when he twice sued Jensen, and are now acting as the attorneys of Mr. Scholtz, and they write in most aggrieved tones to Mr. Hoal, now at Pretoria. They preface their letter by a statement that they only write the letter because the seriousness of the facts warrant it, and because it should be brought to the notice of the Department, and thirdly because the matter concerns an official, Mr. J. J. Scholtz, who is now, if you please, the deputy-sheriff at Mossel Bay. So on the grounds of favoured nation treatment to officials Mr. Scholtz gets his attorneys to write this letter, and I want the House to consider its terms. It is a most scandalous letter. It goes on to say that in the first instance after detective Mollentzie and Mitchell, the chief of the C.I.D., had reported that van Rensburg had no case, McCormick took Scholtz before the magistrate at Mossel Bay and wanted, by means of examination, to find out as to whether he had “ humbugged ” van Rensburg. This is the misrepresentation of what McCormick did under authoritative advice. McCormick is represented by this letter to be “trying to ruin Scholtz, and Scholtz’s good name is being besmirched by these frivolous charges.” Frivolous charges, after the report of Mr. Nightingale, the attorney-general of the Cape! Could a more cowardly attack be made upon a zealous member of the police? But here is a worse attack upon the reputation of the public prosecutor. Messrs. Marais and de Villiers say in a postscript, “ It is possible that van Rensburg has got hold of the public prosecutor, but what has become of Schotlz’s books?” “ Got hold of the public prosecutor!” Now we can understand how zealous public servants are attacked without protection or means of redress! Now Mr. Scholtz’s books were the subject of a question by me in this House. I asked the Minister whether the books, in view of the falsity disclosed, should not be held for further examination. We find that Mr. Hoal sends Messrs. Marais and de Villier’s letter to the Acting Attorney-General of the Free State, pointing out that Mr. Scholtz had originally handed his books over voluntarily to the police at Mossel Bay, and authorized them to take possession of the books at Boshof. He goes on to say that if Mr. McCormick has any suspicion of a crime the proper course is to submit the matter to the local public prosecutor. The Acting Attorney-General of the Free State (not Mr. de Jager), in the course of his reply to Mr. Hoal, says—

This is a reference to the zealous officer who had been commended by Mr. Nightingale and who, according to further phrases in this letter, is evidently trying “to get Scholtz on something or other—but this savours of vindictiveness, and the sooner we get the books back to Scholtz the better for all concerned.” McCormick has worked devotedly, produced 60 pages of report from a mass of detail that might appall anybody, and that is the reward he gets at the end of it. Is that the sort of reward a zealous police officer keen on the exposure of fraud is entitled to get at the hands of the Acting Attorney-General of the Free State? This demands an enquiry.

This may be true.

I do not take too much notice of what the hon. member says. If it is desired to retain the books the letter says the matter must be dealt with as a fresh seizure. In the course of a second letter to Mr. Hoal, the acting Attorney-General of the Orange Free State, states that McCormick’s explanation as regards the retention of the books is futile and Hoal suggests to him that he should express grave displeasure to the police for their action in retaining the books of Scholtz. What is more reasonable than that these books should be retained for future investigation? In addition to the case of van Rensburg we have that of D. H. van Zyl, of Kromrand, Boshof. I was very much impressed by the man, who is of a type of Free State farmer to whom one is instinctively attracted, one who commands respect from everybody, and his story, briefly, is that he came into the hands of Scholtz, a rich man, and went out ruined. He is to-day working as a European labourer. He sought the advice of the Minister of Justice before he became Minister, and he tells me that Mr. Roos advised him to the effect that Scholtz had defrauded him of something like £750. I am merely going on his verbal statement, but he assures me the opinion was given in writing. He has placed before me a series of documents which certainly disclose what is a grave injustice. In the Minister’s file there is a letter addressed to Scholtz from van Zyl, which Scholtz sent to his attorneys in Bloemfontein, whining that McCormick was seeking to get further evidence from van Zyl against him and to bring about his ruin. Is this the attitude of an innocent man? My whole case is that the series of cases I have drawn attention to discloses a case for inquiry, and I press for that inquiry. It is no part of my duty in this House to come forward with charges of corruption, but it is my public duty, where I am satisfied that there is need for inquiry, to press for it before any question of corruption arises, and before the mind of the public becomes prejudiced irrevocably against the administration of justice in this country. To my mind, the facts I have disclosed are sufficient in themselves to call upon the Minister to stand up and announce that he will give this inquiry, that he will explore every complaint made by these people and give them the satisfaction of knowing that the Minister of Justice has no purpose to serve but to hold the scales evenly, and see that justice is free and equal to all. I maintain that there is no information before the House to satisfy us that the Government are not acting in a way in which Mr. Scholtz is being shown some amount of favour. I shall probably be indicted by the Minister for imputing dishonourable motives. I am doing nothing of sort. I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to see that Mr. Scholtz withdraws from his appointment as Deputy Sheriff. Mr. Scholtz has no right to be Deputy-Sheriff unless this matter is cleared up, and I maintain that in his own interests he should resign from his public office and demand an inquiry as far as these facts are concerned. I also wish to draw attention to the case of Det.-Sergt. Atkinson. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has recently been giving particular attention to my constituency, and it is therefore necessary for me to say a few words especially in connection with the Bethlehem Case. I should not have done so if the hon. member in his previous speech in connection with this matter had not created the impression—perhaps wrongly—that this was a case where the Government was shielding a certain accused person because that person was a supporter of the Government. Certain people spoke to me and said that that is the impression they gained owing to the attitude taken up by the hon. member.

On a point of personal explanation-, may I say that I have never suggested that he was protected, because he was a Government supporter. I have not suggested anything of the sort.

I have already said that the impression was possibly wrongly held, but certain persons are under that impression and it is therefore necessary to say that the man who was accused does not belong to the Government party at all, and in the second place that he is not even of the same race as the Minister of Justice. Therefore there can be no question of the Minister being influenced by sentimental consideration in the matter I want to explain to the House that it was an ordinary case which came in the ordinary way before the Court, and that there were no special circumstances why the Minister of Justice should be moved to give a decision differently from the usual procedure. We can find no ground for saying or supposing that the Minister of Justice could, or might have had the least special feeling or sympathy for that person. The fact is that in this case two persons were accused and the preliminary examination was held in one case. In the other case the evidence would have been precisely the same, because as the hon. member for Illovo has already told—

On a point of personal explanation, may I say that I have never suggested that he was projected because he was a Government supporter. I have not suggested anything of the sort.

In the House, there were only two witnesses. Accordingly when the attorney-general gave his decision he had before him all the evidence which could be given in connection with the matter. Some time after the attorney-general had given his decision, during last session, I received a letter from a certain friend at Bethlehem. Here I may further explain that this man wrote in quite a friendly way to me, and that he is a member for the same political party as the. Minister of Justice. He sent me a transcript of the court proceedings in the case and asked me to see the Minister as to whether he would not prosecute as there was a feeling that there ought to be a prosecution. I went to see the Minister and discussed the matter. It was at once clear that the Minister had already seen the evidence, and that, he was not prepared to decide, that the attorney-general had exercised his discretion wrongly in this case. This is a case where the attorney-general exercised his discretion in the ordinary way and decided, not to prosecute. After seeing the evidence the Minister came to the same conclusion. The Minister made a remark in passing that there was possibly local jealousy involved, and as the hon. member for Illovo referred to the friendly letter that I wrote. I may say that it was a confidential letter of the kind which has already often, been abused. It contained the statement that there was possibly local jealousy, and the reason for such a view was the fact that there were only two witnesses in the case—the native constable who made the arrest, and a native who passed and was called upon to assist. The latter was, as it happened, a native employed by another doctor at Bethlehem. This doctor was Dr. Loubser, apparently a man with the highest professional status in Bethlehem. He has been there many years and enjoys universal respect. To suppose for a moment that he would be influenced by jealousy to do anything of that kind, to practically construct a case against the accused, I do not believe, and I said so at once to the Minister. Nevertheless I thought that as I was writing to a friend, to a person who certainly in ordinary circumstances has complete confidence in the Minister I might mention to him in a friendly way what the attitude of the Minister was. I feel convinced that the Minister has given his careful attention to this case because when I wanted to show him the copy of the evidence he said that it was unnecessary I because he knew the case. The hon. member for Illovo wanted to make out this afternoon that the Minister had no knowledge of the matter, and had not seen the documents.

No, I said that he left nothing in writing.

I will deal with that.

The Minister considered the matter and decided not to upset the attorney-general’s discretion. What are the actual allegations in this case? Here we have a case that so often occurs—probably hundreds and thousands since Union—where evidence is sent up to the attorney-general who decides not to prosecute. Of course it is possible that attorneys-general have already in the past used their discretion in a way differing from the views of the local public when the latter though that there should be a prosecution. It is surely not the intention that the Minister of Justice should take action in all such cases. We know that the discretion of the attorneys-general under the South Africa Act is practically absolute, but in 1926 an amending Act was passed. When one notices what was said when the Bill was introduced in 1926 it appears that it, never was intended that the Minister, should take the place of the attorneys-general. During the debate it was made very clear that the Bill was only intended to give the Minister of Justice the responsibility so that he could use his discretion when cases involving State policy came up.

To allow his friends their liberty.

If the intention were that the Minister should intervene in every case where he, personally, or the public differs then the position of the attorneys-general would be unnecessary and impossible. His office would be that of an ordinary clerk and he would not have the authority which our law expects and demands. I am certain that if the Minister of Justice intervenes and upsets the discretion of the attorneys-general——

The Minister of Justice was consulted in this case.

Yes, that is the very point which I have already emphasized. What I now want to point out is that if the Minister of Justice had acted then he would have had no reason to refuse in hundreds of other cases, such as theft. He would have made his own position as Minister, and that of the attorneys-general impossible. The case to-day is not whether the discretion of the attorney-general was properly exercised, because if the Government is to appoint a commission of enquiry in all cases where the discretion of the attorneys-general is wrongly exercised then there will be no end to the enquiries, and the administration of justice will be in a sad plight. No, we must take it that the attorney-general exercised his discretion according to his rights and in a proper manner, and even if he used his discretion wrongly then there is no ground for an enquiry unless serious allegations are made against him. Even if it is shown that he used his discretion wrongly we get no further.

Why did you recommend a private prosecution?

I was asked as a member of Parliament what ought to be done in such a case, and my reply to the people was that the law permitted private prosecutions in case of dissatisfaction with the discretion of the attorney-general and of the Minister. I only pointed out the legal position. It is a case which occurred in April, 1928, and shortly after the evidence was sent to me. It appeared to me that the public of Bethlehem were satisfied with the reply, and that they abided by the decision, but unfortunately something happened in Bethlehem recently. Practically a similar occurrence took place, and a man was prosecuted for the name offence and under the same section after he was arrested by the same native constable.

They are fond of kaffir women there.

The man was prosecuted and convicted, and the Bethlehem public are now asking why in this case a prosecution and conviction took place when there was no prosecution in the other one. To the man in the street the two cases may appear the same, but it does not follow that to the Attorney-General and the Minister the evidence was the same. It is a matter of evidence, and if the evidence is not literally the same, then it is impossible in the administration of justice to deal with the two cases in the same way. In the circumstances we cannot come to the decision that there is any reason here for a special enquiry unless it can be shown that the two cases are exactly the same

The native woman pleaded guilty.

The fact is that it was a preliminary examination, and at the end she was asked if she had anything to say. She then said: “It is as the constable stated. The master picked me up along the road. That is not a plea of guilty.

She admitted the police evidence.

It is not actually a question of a plea of guilty, but even if that were so then there is another circumstance in the case which we often have in the northern provinces, namely, that it is a dangerous principle where two races are concerned to always convict white persons on the evidence of natives only. I do not say it is so in this case, but it is not impossible that that fact weighed with the Minster of Justice.

Will the Minister accept a motion for the adjournment? Evidently he will not, so we shall have to get on with the debate. Owing to a decision of the Pretoria magistrate in connection with the Wages Act, probably every determination under that measure has been declared invalid, and all the people who have had their wages fixed under these determinations are thrown out into open competition again. It will take months in which to fix matters up, thanks to the loose manner in which the Act has been administered and the faulty, inefficient and bungling methods followed by the Minister of Labour. The “Social and Industrial Review” contains a list of 94 wage determinations, and it is indicated that nine of them were declared inoperative in consequence of appeal cases. Evidently nine pump men in the employ of the Krugersdorp municipality are the only men in the Union whose position in regard to wages is unchallengeable. This matter has come before the Minister time after time. The illegality of his determinations has been shown to him on many occasions. I wish to move—

I beg to second the amendment, and also have some criticisms to advance against the Minister of Labour. We are not only disappointed with him in regard to the matters which have been mentioned, but we are also disappointed that we put a man forward for Cabinet rank who has proved so unfitted to handle business matters. He has some good qualities, including a good memory, but a business man is one who knows how to find someone with knowledge about a matter and then is guided by experience. I have taken a great interest in diamond cutting, and I thought the industry would be started in a businesslike way. We had a contract hanging fire for four years and nothing could be properly arranged. Finally, we have some people who get a concession, and if ever there was a rotten concession, that was bound to make trouble, it was the one the hon. gentleman had a hand in, and I understand, a very big influence in settling. He knows, if he has studied trades unionism at all, that a cardinal principle underlying all trades unions is that we should not jeopardise the craftsman by overstocking the industry with apprentices. The whole of this cutting industry rests upon a concession so complicated that it will probably end with a lawsuit. He starts by agreeing that 60 competent workers shall train in five years 500 apprentices. He knew, to start with, that was not fair, and is opposed to all trade union principles. Instead of being manly in standing fast by workers he determined rather to do nothing whatever that might inconvenience his colleagues. He is certainly very loyal in that way. Therefore instead of using the knowledge he should have had or could easily have obtained, he entered into this arrangement and now all the trouble has started, as could have been anticipated from the first.

The hon. member is not entitled to criticise adversely an agreement which has been confirmed by the House. I understand that is what he is doing at the present time.

I have no wish to adversely criticise the actions of this House, and will go on to deal with the whole system so unwisely introduced. He was dealing with a trade union which is one of the strongest in the world, and, of course, was at once antagonised. Difficulties began and I doubt now whether the best class of cutters have been induced to come to this country. Had he done what is right there would have been no trouble at all. We should have had the very best cutters introduced without difficulty to the Union by complying with the easily ascertained rules. Everything was going perfectly smoothly, but when the unbusinesslike Minister of Labour took the matter in hand trouble began. First of all, there was the question of the disproportionate number of apprentices, which of course was resented in Amsterdam. While I was on the other side of the sea I got the assurance that Amsterdam cutters Were incensed by the Minister saying he wanted to remove the whole of the trade from Amsterdam. I said that surely he could not be so foolish as to say that, but there was the Reuter’s telegram. The result is we have antagonised Amsterdam, and have had strikes in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Through unbusiness like methods we have got into a complicated tangle. I do not know how it is possible to rectify it and I anticipate trouble for quite a long time. I am sorry the Minister of Mines and Industries is not here. I think when I show the position of the diggers, it will soften even his hard heart. Out of 8,000, fully 4,000 are out of work. There is a case where 8,000 diggers were compelled to ballot for only 1,000 claims. The remaining claims were thrown open at only 24 hours’ notice, so that only motor car owners could compete. When the Minister has time I hope he is going to see these diggers get a fair deal. They also have a grievance that the brother of one of the Ministers was appointed to a very responsible post right over the heads of people high up in the service. I can understand the feeling of wanting to assist relatives, but I say in this case, it is deplorable. I use this occasion to protest against nepotism that has become rather a common practice in the last four years. Now I come to what I regret very much in the absence of the Minister of the Interior—not question of the flag itself—that is settled— but the promise which we believed would be carried out when the compromise was effected, that the measure would be applied with all possible consideration of the feelings of the people. I was in favour of one acceptable flag, and never wanted two flags. Recently I asked why two special Union flags were put on the old Supreme Court buildings here, and not the Union Jack, and as the Minister’s reply showed, he has not been applying that Act with consideration, but has ridden roughshod over the feelings of the people, which will be bad for his party in the coming elections, like the German treaty. I ask the Minister of Defence whether he thinks it was a good act towards his fellow countrymen, when he had the option and being in command of the castle at Cape Town, that the Union Jack which had flown there since 1806 should be pulled down and the new flag substituted. It has given very great offence and was entirely unnecessary. He might have had both our flags flown. He has shown himself qualified, not as the window dresser but the window cleaner, of his party— the window in which to display foreign goods. We of the parliamentary Labour party are almost all of British extraction, and our leader, a distinguished officer of the British Empire, has let us down. I am sorry that the lately-appointed Minister of Posts and Telegraphs— a member of the Order of the British empire—

I do not think it is right for the hon. member to make these personal references to hon. Ministers.

May I not be permitted to deal with that sentiment when we all feel so deeply? I am only mentioning a fact of which I am sure he feels proud, and I merely want to refer to the motto of that Order, “For God and the empire.” We rather prefer the word Commonwealth. I regret that the Minister of Defence has endorsed a Nationalist candidate in my constituency. He asked me to fight that seat. Is it fair that the seat should now be surrendered to the Nationalists? In that act he has become a Nationalist. It was his duty to see that it should be held by a Labour man, even if that occupant was a Creswellite. In this act he has proved that he, and those still following him, have really become Nationalists.

I am sorry that the Minister of Labour went out, because the amendment is one that concerns his department. The matter which has come to a climax to-day has already been referred to. After months, nay years, of effort to put into force the provisions of the Wage Act, to make determinations which would be of some good effect to the working people concerned, we have demonstrated that the whole thing has become a farce and is a complete frost. It would not be so bad if the Minister had not had experience and warnings of the whole thing. I would not be surprised if the chairman of the Board, a man who is regarded very highly, and who may be elevated to the Bench one day, has not given advice and information to the Minister long before this. It must be heart-breaking to the chairman and to the workers to find time after time that awards have been declared illegal and inoperative in the Courts because of the carelessness and in some cases the supineness, of the Minister. I myself discussed this question with him. We find after five years, and after the Minister has been in that position for four years, that we are exactly where we were before. Mr. Andrew Fisher, the ex-Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, no doubt the Minister of Defence will remember, told the Minister and myself that this system had been tried in Australia.

shook his head.

If the hon. Minister cannot recollect such an interview surely he can recall the fact that there was a Wage Act in Australia which has been superseded by the present system; why did they do that? It was because they found that the other system had broken down. The personnel of the Board has done its best. Another determination was declared illegal, and yet he took a chance once again, and to-day there has been sounded the knell of yet another application. I must reinforce that argument. Here you have a highly placed official—if the Minister of Defence will cudgel his brains a little bit he will recollect that this highly paid official has been going about the country. I went to Pretoria to address a meeting of the local branch of the South African Labour party at the time when the Minister of Defence was wangling, and when he was conducting a fiery crusade. When I arrived there I found this highly placed gentleman, our Inspector of Labour, conducting operations in a motor car and fetching numbers of people who had never been seen there before. They were wangling and cleaning up the party, and employing Government officials to help them to do it, but the hon. gentleman has not succeeded in smashing up the Labour party. Now in regard to unemployment. The Minister of Labour has said that he is doing all he can in the direction of eliminating unemployment and he also gave us to understand that the position was foot so bad as he though it was. Well, two of my hon. friends and myself went to the Labour office to see what the position was. We found the place inundated. The argument used was that there were jobs which these men refused, but I challenge any hon. member to say that he would advocate that any man should take one of these jobs. We found that fifty men were wanted to work at Verneuk Pan at 5/- per day. It is nothing to laugh at. However the Minister of Defence may look at me, he might try and compose his face when I talk about a matter of this sort. To ask a man to go to Verneuk Pan, with the only alternative of starvation, at 5/- a day, is adding insult to the terrible injury of unemployment. Another complaint was that a man had refused a job. He was a married man with five children, and he was offered 6/- a day to go to the other side of Bellville, with a second-class ticket to go there. You cannot save much out of 6/-, and his wife and child were ill. This man was asked to sever himself from his family, and God knows how he was to get back from Bellville again. That will be held up as an example of the callousness of unemployed men. Now I want to touch on the question of the wireless terminal rates. The Minister said with all truth that I had left him a legacy. Yes, I also left him a legacy of 8/- per day. He made a very limp statement in regard to these rates. I went into this matter thoroughly. At first the Government attorney thought we had not a leg to stand on, but later on it was pointed out that what the Wireless Company wanted was an agreement that they should pay ordinary telegraphic rates, and the attorney said there was nothing else for it but for the company to pay the owed money and pay these rates. I want to tell the Minister that I saw Mr. Pirow, whom I asked for advice, and he told me that not only was the company bound to pay, but that I should issue instructions that the new rates should come into force at once, and we should hold all the money belonging to the company until they had refunded the money they owed. I was astonished to hear the Minister say that they could go on in the old sweet way, which means the surrender of £25,000 or £30,000 of the State’s money. No, I am afraid Mr. Marconi has been exercising some influence, and I think the Minister had better lay the opinion of the Government attorney on, the Table, which opinion, he says, now completely reverses the opinion expressed by him, and also give us a list Of the witnesses whom the Government attorney cross-examined, and upon whose, cross-examination he has come to this conclusion. The public want to know the facts. When the history is told of our participation in regard to the wireless and cable merger, and how the. Government surrendered its business, the Minister will find that the public will be attacking him root and branch.

You will tell the history.

Yes I will tell it. The only, man who fears is the man who wants to keep it quiet. I want to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs what is the intention of the Government in regard to the extension of a rural telephone system. This is a matter which is very dear to my heart. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Boydell, the previous Minister, who took this question up with tremendous enthusiasm, an enthusiasm with which I was infected. He realized, as I do, that we should go on extending these telephones, so that the men on farms can be brought into touch with everyone else. I would like to know what is in the mind of the Minister regarding this matter. I wanted to deal with the matter of public health, but the Minister of the Interior seems to be rather contemptuous. I will only say that this plague question is very serious. I found that there were moles boring on my little farm, so I went to the municipality and asked them to supply me with cartridges to fire into the holes. They gave me one hundred charges, some of which I used, but I about three days later the moles were at work again, and I was afterwards told that the cartridges supplied by the Public Health Department were of inferior quality.

I should like to reply to one or two of the points raised by hon. members. I will first of all deal with the point raised by the hon. member who has just spoken in regard to rural telephones. On Tuesday last I read out to this House a very long statement on this matter, showing the number of applications, the number executed last year, and the number to be put in hand next year. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) asked me what is the position in regard to the wireless merger. It is only a few weeks back that, in reply to a question, I read a two- and-a-half page statement to the House explaining the position fully. The position is that we are not directly affected at this end, because both cables and wireless are still operated here under licence from the Government, but the position in Great Britain was that through the competition of the wireless companies there was a great danger of many of the cable services closing down. A conference was held representing the Imperial Government and the Various dominions, and the result was that it was recommended that a communications company should be formed which would take over all the cables in which the Imperial Government were interested, and likewise should take over the wireless run by the British Post Office. This was provided, for in an Act of Parliament recently passed. An advisory committee has since been appointed for the purpose of determining rates, and advising on matters affecting the public. When this advisory committee was set up this country was consulted as to who should sit upon it, and we are represented on that committee with regard to matters affecting the Union of South Africa. We have nothing to do with the merger. We are not concerned with it. At this end where the Government issue licences for the transmission of messages we stand in exactly the same position as we did before the merger was formed. In the contract with the Beam wireless company there will be a clause which will prevent any monopoly being formed. We are still free to issue to a new cable or wireless company any licence that we choose. We can issue licences to scores of companies if we wish. The suggestion that this company has been given the sole right to transmit messages from South Africa is entirely erroneous. The second point made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) I will now deal with. The position of the dispute between him and the wireless company at the time I entered the Cabinet was this. The wireless company was granted a licence under the Radio Act of 1926 to erect a wireless station and to transmit messages between here and Great Britain, and a dispute had arisen as to the interpretation of certain words in that licence. The hon. member said the other day that he doubted my word when I told the House that the State attorney had advised the Government that it was futile to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. I will read the opinion of the State attorney which is in a communication addressed to the Postmaster-General, Cape Town—

The views referred to simply amounted to this, that if certain words were interpreted strictly in their legal sense, there was a possibility that the court would give a decision in favour of the Government, but if on the other hand the matter was decided by arbitration, with all the surrounding circumstances taken into account, other than the printed word, then, in his opinion, it would go against us. That was Mr. Pienaar’s opinion. He goes on to say—

I might point out that our charge to the cable company is one-penny per word—

After receiving that advice I consulted with my colleagues in the Government, and they agreed that the best way was to withdraw the claim, on condition that the arbitration case was withdrawn at the same time. And that was done. The papers in connection with this case contained the advice of the law advisers, plus the opinion of the State attorney, given, of course, before I entered office. Shortly after I entered office the company wished to know what its position was. There has been no proper licence since July last. The old licence had expired. If we did succeed in securing another £30,000 as a result of these terminal charges, does the hon. member for Benoni think the company is going to bear the loss? They will be compelled to raise their rates. It will be passed on to the public. The licence expired last July, and we have allowed them to continue on a monthly understanding, In the law of 1923, continued in the licence issued in 1926, there was a provision that one-fifth of the company’s share capital should be issued in South Africa. Obviously the company could not go to the public for that without any licence. That embargo has now been removed, and a new agreement is in process of discussion or practically agreed upon by which we shall issue a further licence to this company to perform their work at the rates which are laid down by the Postal Convention. We have been carrying cablegrams at one penny per word, and we have no right to differentiate between one communication company and another. The Post Office people assure me that one penny per word will amply pay us in regard to transmitting wireless messages, and consequently it is proposed in the new licence to make it perfectly plain that one penny per word is meant in regard to these messages that are sent from overseas. For about nine months the company has been prevented by these arbitration proceedings from extending its business. I think it has been a silly contention from the very beginning that because you can put a certain legal construction on words in a licence when rates are in dispute, that you should do so when it is clear to all the technical persons in your department that this construction was not the intention at the beginning. That was a wrong attitude to take up towards the company. We owe some apology to the company for the way in which he stultified their business in the last nine months.

I want to say a word or two to hon. members over there with regard to their attack upon the Minister of Labour. The words of the hon. members over there may go forth to the public as being correct, and may do an enormous amount of damage to a large number of employees.

You know that is not true. It is window dressing.

The magistrate’s court is not the highest court of law in the land, and this case will be taken on appeal to a higher court. Of course, if employers assume that our legal advice is wrong and disregard the Wage Act, they may, later on, find themselves in a very difficult position.

I want to reply, shortly, to some questions, and especially to the remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in regard to the administration of justice in the Free State, which formed the subject of certain allegations in the “no confidence” debate. I think he complained at that time about the position of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, Mr. Nightingale, in connection with a case against Iris Gordon.

I especially excluded the Attorney-General of the Transvaal.

With what object did the hon. member discuss a case where Mr. Nightingale was supposed to have exercised his discretion wrongly and sinister influences were supposed to be at work?

I especially excluded Mr. Nightingale.

With what object did the hon. member discuss the case of Iris Gordon, in which Mr. Nightingale declined to prosecute? The hon. member cannot deny that in that case Mr. Nightingale who, I am sorry to say, is now leaving the service, declined to prosecute. Did he want to say that the Minister of Justice interfered with the decision?

I have been denied access to the papers until this very day.

In every case in which the hon. member has asked for access to the papers I said he could inspect them in my office.

You issued instructions yesterday that I was not to take a copy.

The hon. member has not only been inspecting the papers, but has been abusing the privilege, and so I said to one of the officials “I don’t think we should be put to the inconvenience of having copies made.” In the “no confidence” debate the case of the Transvaal attorney-general was cited.

I especially excluded him.

That is typical of the hon. member. This afternoon certain imputations were made, and when questioned he at once said “I am not making imputations.” The hon. member is right, for since then we have not heard much about the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, but I have been subjected to a series of questions regarding the administration of justice in the Free State. It is very difficult for a layman to fully appreciate the weight of evidence as well as a lawyer can. There are scores of cases where prosecutions are instituted on the advice of an attorney-general, but no conviction follows. The accused are dragged through the courts at great inconvenience and expense, and no conviction follows; but we do not hear about these cases. I have already said in this House that if any hon. member intends to go further than merely to suggest that an attorney-general exercised a wrong decision, and alleges that either in the Free State or any of the other provinces improper influences have been at work, and that there have been mala fides, I shall order an enquiry. If the hon. member for Illovo will, outside this House, make any imputations against the Attorney-General of the Free State of improper conduct, I am informed that Mr. de Jager will at once see that the hon. member, will substantiate these allegations in a court of law.

What is parliamentary privilege for?

Certain scandalous charges were publicly made in the Free State, an action was instituted, and I have indicated the result. The hon. member to-night was indignant because the other day I informed the House in reply to a question by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in reference to this question of the Jensen case. The point I wanted to make then, and want to make now, is this, that if the hon. member at that time had believed there was something wrong with the administration of justice in the Free State he then had the opportunity to come and give evidence in that case before the court and have the matter thrashed out. The hon. member did not do so. That is the point I want to make to-night.

He had no knowledge of that case.

If he had no knowledge of that case then if the hon. member knew about other cases of maladministration——

I did not know of a single case at that stage.

What was the connection of the hon. member with Mr. Jensen when he saw him in Cape Town?

I have never seen him in my life.

What was the connection of the hon. member when all those papers were sent to him by Mr. Jensen?

They were returned to him immediately.

Whether the hon. member or anybody else has allegations to make against Mr. de Jager they had the opportunity in that case to substantiate their charges. The hon. member has asked me a series of questions in regard to several cases. I did not merely inform the House of the facts but I went out of my way to submit the cases to the senior law adviser and I have read his opinion to the House. But to-night the hon. member has apparently dropped these other cases and he has specifically mentioned again the Bethlehem case and the Van Rensburg case and I wish to deal particularly with those cases. First the Bethlehem case. I informed the House of the facts on a previous occasion. I said in this case not only the Attorney-General but the Minister of Justice himself brought his mind to bear on the case and had come to the conclusion that a prosecution should not be instituted. The hon. member has doubted my words. He said that allegation of mine rested on nothing else but the report of the Attorney-General. Of course he won’t accept anything the Attorney-General states. He doubts that.

I am speaking from my knowledge of the papers.

Let me tell the hon. member that I was informed by Mr. de Jager that he has in his possession a letter from Mr. Roos and also a note from the Secretary of Justice who says “Mr. de Jager has a letter from Mr. Roos and I have read it.” The facts are these—

It is not among the papers.

Of course it won’t be among the papers because it is a letter written by Mr. Roos to Mr. de Jager. I understand the facts are these. Shortly after the Act was passed it was a new Act and there were many people who thought it was rather a drastic action for Parliament to take in making this sort of thing an offence. The Attorney-General of the Free State was in Cape Town on leave and when he returned he found three cases pending. One was a case where a young ganger was charged with this offence. The other was a case of an ex-soldier in Bloemfontein who was living with a native woman and the other was this Bethlehem case. He wrote to Mr. Roos and said “What do you think I should do in these cases? This is a new Act and I would like you to advise me. As far as the two cases are concerned I doubt whether a prosecution will succeed.” Mr. Roos wrote back “I think you should have no difficulty in the first case. I agree with you that the evidence is not very strong there. As far as the case of the ex-soldier is concerned, I advise you to inform him that if he is prepared to marry the woman we will not prosecute.” And that was apparently done. In the Bethlehem case he said “I also agree with you there. I do not think the evidence is very strong and that a prosecution will succeed.” These are the facts and I do not think Parliament would want to go beyond the exercise of discretion in such a case either by the Attorney-General or the Minister The other case is the van Rensburg case. From the papers as far as I have been able to gather it would appear that van Rensburg has been labouring under a sense of grievance for a number of years against Mr. Scholtz who was an attorney at Boshof and who is now at Mossel Bay. Certain allegations of fraud were made at the time. The papers came before the Attorney-General and he thought the case was not strong enough to order a prosecution. Subsequently van Rensburg was charged with stock theft. He was convicted mainly on the evidence of a policeman who had been previously in the employ of Scholtz and he immediately came to the conclusion that Scholtz had some connection by trying to get this policeman to trump up a charge. There was the evidence of another police boy whose evidence in a later case appears to have been tainted. Van Rensburg was prosecuted and a conviction followed. That was reviewed by the judges of the Supreme Court and although they reduced the sentence the conviction was confirmed. On several occasions van Rensburg made representations to the Minister of Justice and in the end the Minister said, “I will get the police to make further enquiries and I will put the matter to the law advisers again to see whether they agree with the Attorney-General.”After a lengthy investigation Mr. Roos eventually instructed Mr. Hoal, one of our best officers in the Law Department, to go through the papers arid if he thought fit to frame a charge. That was’ done. Mr. Hoal came down specially from Bloemfontein and a preparatory examination was taken before Mr. Stirling, the magistrate at Bloemfontein, one of our most experienced magistrates. Mr. Stirling heard the evidence and in the end came to the conclusion there was no case, but besides that Mr. Hoal has informed the Law Department that he must agree with the finding of the magistrate who he thought could come to no other conclusion. Surely that ought to be sufficient for the hon. member. What more can the Department of Justice do? The hon. member says that the evidence of Sergt. McCormick was not used, but he could not give evidence in the case, so that falls away. Then the hon. member says that Mr. de Jager met Mr. Scholtz at Bloemfontein station when he arrived. Mr. de Jager has already denied that. He had nothing to do with the prosecution. The hon. member says, why was the trial ordered to take place at Bloemfontein? I have already said that the attorneys advised that it would be most convenient and expedient to have tne trial there. Naturally, the decision of the magistrate at Bloemfontein would carry greater weight than that of the magistrate at Boshof, where there was a lot of feeling and talk about the case, and I do not think it would have been a desirable place. The hon. member knows that the venue of trials is often shifted to places different from where the crime took place. The hon. member seems to have a grievance about the books of Mr. Scholtz. After the decisions were given, what interest had the department in the books, except on a charge of insolvency?

Why were the police censured about the books?

In the first place, Mr. de Jager was the man who could not be trusted; then the complaint was that Mr. Hoal could not have done his duty, and now it is the Acting Attorney-General whose action is being censured. The hon. member will see in the report sent up to the Governor-General, that it is stated that he (McCormick) had become so obsessed with the idea that the man was guilty, notwithstanding the trial that took place, that the department came to that conclusion. Then the hon. member says. “Why is the Government acting in this way and showing favour to Mr. Scholtz? Why does not the Government, under those circumstances withdraw the appointment of Mr. Scholtz as deputy-sheriff of Mossel Bay?” The hon. member knows, and he should know, because he was told, that the Government has absolutely nothing to do with the appointment or cancellation of appointment, and that it is a matter for the High Sheriff of each province.

He was also appointed a member of the Government Valuation Board.

I do not know whether he was, but even if he was, after the verdict and the exhaustive enquiries which have been made, I do not see why the Government should interfere, even if he does hold that appointment. There is nothing in the charges, and Mr. van Rensburg has been labouring under a sense of grievance all these years. What then, becomes of the charges of the hon. member?

Who was the Acting Attorney-General?

A man from Natal, I think. Then the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asked “Why was the Attorney-General transferred to the Cape immediately after the deputation which made this serious allegation to the Prime Minister?” Let me inform the House that the statement made to the Prime Minister had absolutely nothing to do with the transfer of Mr. de Jager to Cape Town, which had already been decided by the Minister of Justice, so that also falls away. The charges have been proved to be without the slightest foundation. If the hon. member was to make a definite allegation against the honour and integrity of Mr. de Jager, I shall order an enquiry, and if he makes it outside Mr. de Jager will have his remedy.

[inaudible].

There was the evidence in the preparatory case against the woman. I want to say a few words about another important matter, which was raised by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), who dealt with the question of a number of white employees in a restaurant in Johannesburg being superseded as the result of a certain action I took. I did not take any direct action in the matter; although I am prepared to take responsibility. What happened was that representations were made to the Government at the time of the passing Of the Liquor Bill, and when the Indian clauses were under discussion, the Minister of Justice had made a definite statement, which was repeated outside, that the idea was not to interfere with the vested rights of those wine stewards already in employment in the country, but we were going to prohibit the future employment of these persons. When the Act was passed it appeared that, strictly speaking, it could be interpreted that even these appointments were prohibited. What took place was that I circularised the magistrates, and pointed out that under the Act they had the right to grant exemptions from time to time to any class of restricted person, and we thought it would be only reasonable if that right were exercised in the case of persons who held the appointment of wine stewards at the time of the passing of the Act. Probably that has taken place, and magistrates are now granting exemptions to persons who proved they were so appointed.

The telegram I received affected one place only, where 25 people were employed.

The only action I have taken is to circularize magistrates that they could grant exemptions in the case of Indian wine stewards, or in the case of others who were, at the passing of the Liquor Act, employed in that capacity. If the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) will submit the facts to me, I will make inquiries, but it will not affect the appointment of similar persons employed in a similar capacity. One hon. member raised the question as to what I was going to do in regard to the necessity for supplying our hospitals with radium. In the first place, our hospital services fall under the provincial councils. Secondly, in this country, as in all other countries, the funds for this purpose should come from endowments made by wealthy people in the country. I am sure the provincial councils will do their duty. I believe it has been done in the Free State, and I do not see why it should not be done in the other provinces. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has again referred to the question of the discrepancy in the reports of the inland revenue department in regard to the income of the farming community, but he has since shifted his ground. The matter is a civil one, and I gave the information to the House that these incomes would be similarly affected by the exemptions we have given. We know that owing to the changing conditions in this country, it is either a feast or a famine as far as the farmer is concerned.

But you told us how prosperous agriculture was.

The hon. member must not misquote me. I pointed out what had happened as a result of drought conditions, etc., and said that despite this, generally speaking, agriculture was in a good position. If the hon. member takes any particular year in regard to the position of the farmers, that does not affect the position at all. Here let me say that the Government does not intend to introduce the bounty system again. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) raised the question of the withdrawal of the police at the various docks. The position is that the commissioner of police is simply desirous of making the various police units available for ordinary police duties. He discussed this question with me, and informed me that the railway police are primarily responsible, and that he would make the necessary arrangements. I did not understand from him that the Railway Department only was affected, and I have since ascertained that the position also applies to the customs. The commissioner will give at least 71 units, at a cost of about £300 each, and if the police are withdrawn by the railways, he will authorize that the necessary personnel shall be available for customs and other purposes.

Are you going to make them interchangeable?

No, the railways are responsible for work in the dock areas, and there will be police available for the customs also. I think I ought to say a word here in reply to the remark of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in regard to the appointment of Mr. Smit as Administrator of the Transvaal. I was surprised to hear what the hon. member said. I can only say that Mr. Smit discharged his duties as High Commissioner in London in a manner which does him and this country credit, and I have no doubt that he will be equally successful in the office to which he has been appointed in the Transvaal. The hon. member imputed that the appointment was made because of Mr. Smit’s connection with a respected family in the Free State.

The Minister must not say that. I never mentioned anything about the Free State.

I thought the hon. member referred to a certain Free State family. I have no doubt that Mr. Smit will be equally as successful as Administrator of the Transvaal.

I move—

seconded.

I object. I understood that if Order No. 2 were discharged in Order that No. 3 might be taken, the House would adjourn.

I hope my hon. friend will withdraw his objection, as there is an understanding that the proposal will not be objected to.

Of course, if there is an undertaking, there is an undertaking. We wanted to help the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water), and we cut out a lot of speeches, so I went to the Minister of Finance and said that we would take ten minutes more.

The hon. member came to me and said that an hon. member would speak for ten minutes, but instead of that everyone of his neighbours also spoke, so it was nearer fifty minutes than ten minutes. I gave nobody to understand that we were not proceeding with the work before the House. Everybody is anxious to finish the work of Parliament.

I move—

I object.

We wish to see more consideration given to the railway staff, but the only way to get these rights for the men is to prove that the necessary money is available. I desire as much as anyone to see the improvements set out in the amendment carried into effect, but it is all a question of finance. In my opinion the necessary funds are available to meet the demands of the railwaymen. I have held for years that under the present system of railway finance you can prove at any time that you have a nominal deficiency and any Minister can prove to his own and his advisers’ satisfaction that no funds are available. I want to deal again with the question of the renewals fund. To my utter astonishment I found this year the Minister making a statement to the effect that he had made provision for increasing the amount by no less a sum than £390,000. I have tried to find out where there is any justification for this. I know the Minister has been advised by a committee of so-called experts. That committee consisted of the chief mechanical engineer, the chief accountant and the Acting Chief Civil Engineer, who is a very able man, I understand. I say with all due respect that the ex-chief mechanical engineer was not a man fitted to occupy such a responsible position. His tenure of office has cost the country I believe many thousands of pounds. I complained some time ago of his action in altering the designs of certain engines. The danger and additional expense involved was pointed out yet he was allowed to do this. The retirement of that gentleman was a good day’s work for the railways of this country from the point of view of practical railwaymen. In actual practice the gentleman mainly responsible for this report, is the chief accountant of railways. I hold that the opinion of one man, able as he may be, as to whether this enormous increase in the contribution to the renewals fund should take place, is not sufficient. We are entitled to look at the thing from a business point of view and that of the users of the railways and the staff. My point is why should you carry forward these enormous sums of money annually when there is apparently no use for them. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows that today, according to the Auditor General’s report, we have a balance of nearly £3,500,000 in the renewals fund, and in addition to that this departmental committee have recommended much longer periods in the life of rolling stock yet it is calmly proposed to increase the contribution by £390,000. In my opinion, with this balance of nearly £3,500,000 and with this increased contribution, we are going to lay up a sum of money that will not be required. I could put this £390,000 to a much better use for the benefit of the railway men. We have been asking for concessions for a long time in regard to the eight-hour day, the dual rate of pay and things of that sort, but the stock reply is “We cannot afford it.” This £390,000 would have been far better spent in improving conditions of labour and would have caused great satisfaction to many thousands of workers who are not too well paid especially in the lower grades of the service. When you already have this huge sum of money in hand what is the use of piling it up to a still greater extent? For years the balance has been increasing. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) knows that at one time he discovered the renewals fund balance was £4,500,000. Yet he came along in a time of artificial depression and took £2,000,000 out of the fund and still had £2,500,000 left. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) last year, so far as I know, was the first member of the South African party to deal with this question and his argument was that it was a wrong system to have large sums of money locked up in various funds. I put it to the Minister that in view of the small acts of justice which are due to members of the staff, he should not agree to putting this large additional sum of money into the renewals fund. Although the Minister has evidently adopted the committee’s report to a great extent I see no paragraph in that report which definitely recommends that he should increase the contribution to the fund. At the present time, and as I have said, I was astonished when I learned that £390,000 extra was to be allocated to the fund. I would like to ask the Minister whether that has not been the view of successive general managers. Some years ago the general manager, Sir William Hoy, stated that he considered that the contribution of £1,400,000 was quite sufficient for the present, and at any time they could revise the period of the life of the rolling stock, and if they did so they could probably reduce their contribution to the fund. This departmental committee has recommended in many cases an addition to the life of the rolling stock, which hitherto has not been estimated for a sufficient number of years.

There is a very large increase.

How can the Minister reconcile that with the additional amount?

There is a set-off, of course.

That is a matter of opinion I still maintain at all events that the contribution has been quite sufficient, and it is a scandal in my opinion to increase it when we want those things which we have been advocating. If that sum of money was available, I would ask for a larger increase of pay to the civilized labourers. The Minister says he has done what he could possibly manage to improve the conditions of civilized labour. I must say I did not get the support of my party to which I considered I was entitled when I dealt with this question last year. A petition signed by 120 labourers of the Salt River works has recently been drawn up, in which they state that it is impossible for them and their families to live under decent conditions at their present rate of pay, and I will hand it to the Minister. The great majority of the names are of people of Dutch descent. They are doing good work. I heartily endorse the policy of the Government as regards civilized labour, and if the South African party came back to power, they would alter that policy, and you would have hundreds of natives replacing the civilized labourers. There were a great many natives working in Salt River when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was Minister of Railways and Harbours who are not there now. I must say that the Minister appears to be tied up by this routine financial system, and revenue is used to bolster up funds when it is not required. Whether I am returned or not to Parliament I shall continue to advocate the interests of the bottom dog; the top dog has many advocates, but the bottom dog has very few. With regard to the supervision in the workshops, the Minister recently denied that there was any grumbling amongst the men owing to over-supervision. The case was put to me by responsible men in the Salt River workshops; I do not know about the other workshops. In Salt River there is a large section of the Artisan Staff Association, who I am told object very much to the practice of the moment, especially in the machine shop. The men do not object to supervision—the Minister must not run away with that idea. Their good name is at stake, and every workman wishes to be efficient. I have worked at a bench and I know. I could not stand this over-supervision, and I would feel like throwing a hammer at the head of the man who over-supervised me. The men are so disgusted and fed-up that there is a danger of a strong protest being made. Unless the supervision is carried out more discreetly you will have serious trouble in the workshops, and I will leave it at that. Either the responsible officials of the Artisans’ Association are, in plain English, liars, or the officials who are advising the Minister have misinformed him. You have the ordinary foreman, the piece work supervisors, chargemen, and leading hands. The man who does an ordinary day’s work does not want four men supervising his work. The average man wishes to be left alone, and simply requires a fair price for his work. It must be understood that I am not attacking the Minister, but warning him in a friendly way. In any scheme for the better organisation of the workshops and increasing the efficiency of the staff the Minister should issue imperative instructions that the staff organisations should be consulted and their friendly co-operation secured. The section of the Labour party opposite have proposed an amendment. I do not know of any official of any Trade Union or any Labour member of this House who is not entirely in favour of all the points mentioned in that amendment. Members opposite know that we have tried our level best to get these concessions from the Minister. In my opinion it is all a question of finance. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) laughs; does the hon. member agree with me that the extra contribution to the renewals fund is wrong?

Yes.

Vote for it: don’t talk about it.

I wish to know from the Minister what is wrong that he cannot grant us these things. As to dancing to the tune of the section of the Labour party opposite that has proposed this amendment, it will be a very sorry day for me when I do so. I am here to do my duty to my leader and to my party, and I am not going to assist to do anything that will wreck the present Government and put back into power the South African party, which is the enemy of the working classes of this country. The Labour party made a contract with the Nationalist party to carry on the Government of this country, and we on this side of the House intend to carry out our part of the contract to the letter, come what may.

There are a few points which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. His time of five years is now nearly over. As the Minister knows the farmers on the countryside are entirely dependent on the railways. I think he also knows that the railway revenue largely depends on the incomes of the farmers. This is clearly shown by last year’s report. We had a splendid year, there were good maize and potato crops, and the railways benefitted in consequence and the Minister has a surplus. I only want to say that the last year was prosperous, but now we are having a bad one. The farming industry is such that the farmers feel very much the slightest misfortunes that come along. Everyone acquainted with farming and the conditions of the farming industry has ascertained that it is a tender plant, and cannot endure the slightest setback. Now I want to point out to the Minister that this year the farmers have had a very bad time owing to drought and other difficulties, and if the Minister is not very careful in meeting them by lower rates, etc., then it will cause a setback which it will take many years to put right again. When the Minister came into power the slogan was: “The interests of the farmer will be looked after,” but what has he done for them? I am speaking now about farming in the northern Transvaal with which I am well acquainted, and I know what the farmers want, grain bags, farming implements,

I have reduced the rate on both.

fertilizer.

I have reduced the rate on that.

And oil.

On that, too, I have reduced the rate.

Yes, but the reductions are so small that one cannot see them without a magnifying glass. The reduction is too small and the farmer feels that it is so insignificant that he never appreciates it. I must quite seriously say that the railway administration of which the Minister is the head does not sympathise much with the farmers.

In my district the rate on maize has been reduced from 6/6 to 2/- a bag.

The hon. member plants pumpkins and not mealies; be had better keep quiet. I want to ask the Minister during the few months that he will remain in power to show every sympathy towards the farmers. Further I want to point out that, as the farmer provides big revenue for the railway administration, the railways in my opinion are doing far too little for the farmers. I should like the Minister to come and see the small stations, especially after rain. Sometimes there is not even a road by the side of the station where the farmer can off-load his produce, but he has to pay the charges to the railway. I should like the Minister for once to see the station between Devon and Bethal. Then there is another reason why I say that the Minister is not sufficiently assisting the farmers. It is a matter where he can greatly assist them. At some places small elevators have been built. It has been shown that when those elevators had been erected at a good place where there was a need for them they would do very good work. But what is being done in that direction this year? The Government has not submitted a single scheme to the House for the erection of elevators. The Minister says that they have assisted the farmers, but if that were so they ought to build elevators.

The loan estimates are not yet before the House.

No, but the grain elevators are very closely connected with the railways.

Yes, but the elevators can only be erected out of loan funds.

But will the Minister give the assurance that they will be built?

No. I do not give that assurance.

Yes, I knew that because the Minister’s time is over. Too little attention also is given to the travelling public. Now and then excursions and interim tickets are issued, but how are the people treated? I do not know whether the Minister knows it, but the people are simply packed into over-filled trains and they suffer the greatest inconvenience. I do not say that the staff on the trains are to blame, because they are only carrying out instructions. Then I want to refer to the catering service on the railways, because it leaves much to be desired. Perhaps the Minister is well looked after; the service was fairly good for a time but now it is unsatisfactory. People do not get value for their money on the train. Too little attention is paid to the convenience of the travelling public. The train for instance runs via Devon and Bethal to Pietermaritzburg and Durban, and now they have taken the dining car off the train. This causes much discomfort to the public. Everything is done merely for the purpose of getting a surplus but I want to point out to the Minister that he is making a mistake. The railways must in the first place provide for the comfort of travellers. I do not want to criticise the Minister’s policy any more because his time is nearly over in any case.

I am sorry that I do not possess the knowledge of railway matters that previous speakers apparently dp, but I want to take advantage of the opportunity to bring a few points of local and also of general interest to the notice of the House. I do so in view of a few letters I have received. The first letter I want to quote, and I quote it with pleasure, it is one in connection with which I am grateful to the Minister of Railways. It is from the divisional superintendent, Pretoria, in which he refers to my repeated advocacy in Parliament with regard to the bad dwellings for railway workers, and in which he told me that he had received instructions to make better provision as soon as possible on the line from Nelspruit to Graskop for houses for the railwaymen. I am very grateful, and I can almost say that I am speaking on behalf of the railwaymen in thanking the Minister on their behalf. It proves to me that the Minister shows his feeling of responsibility for housing the railwaymen, that he follows the principle that it is not sufficient merely to give work to the people and to pay a wage, but that their material and bodily welfare must also be looked after. With reference to the new line built in my constituency good provision has been made, and I have no comments to make, but in the case of the line from Lydenburg to Belfast great improvements are still possible. I am only sorry that the Minister did not see his way to making a little improvement in the ascents at countryside halts. I asked the Minister to provide low, simple platforms. People often have to join the train at night, there you have the big railway coaches with one, two or three steps, and old, and heavily built, sometimes sickly, people have to climb up from the ground. It is especially difficult for the women. It is almost impossible for healthy, strong men. On the Lydenburg branch line the staff is always polite, ready to help, and friendly to the travelling public, and they do their best to assist people to ascend, but I am almost certain that if the Minister were one day personally to see the difficulty in mounting the train he would make provision in some way or another. The second letter is to my mind of a less pleasant nature. It is one written by a railway man himself. I asked him whether he was actually writing of his own case, but then he wrote a second letter that he was also speaking on behalf of his fellow workers. The letter contains a number of complaints, firstly about pay and conditions of service. He says, e.g., that they get no pay when on leave while other railway workers do get it. He says, “We perish in living on the pay. We do pot complain about the work if we could only get a little more pay.” He says further that he challenges the whole Union to say whether a man with a wife and seven children can live on the pay the railway workmen get. He says further that they have to pay for everything at once otherwise they are dismissed. As far as I now know this man has now eight children, and I think he ought to be rewarded for bringing up so large a family. Nowadays we see so many families neglecting their duty and not co-operating in increasing the white population. A railway worker with a family of seven or eight children certainly ought to be rewarded, because he is an asset to the State. He ought to get a bonus from the State as is done in Italy, and was also done in the old republic. I think a man with twelve children in those days got a present from the Government of a farm. [No quorum]. I do not mind the emptiness of the House because I know the Minister is sympathetically inclined towards railway men. The man says further that he gets 1/3 house allowance, but he asks where he can get a house for £1 12s. 6d. a month. Of course it is not possible for the man to get a good house to accommodate his family properly for that amount. The railway management ought to see the railway workers properly housed everywhere. The third letter also refers to railway labourers, and it is written by someone who is interested in the education of their children. He points out that a large number of children of school-going age do not attend school. I know the Minister of Railways is not responsible for it, and that it is a matter which belongs to the provincial administration and the district school board, yet I am inwardly convinced that the Minister is not not indifferent to the education of the children, because he knows the education his parents were able to give him is responsible for what he is to-day, and I think he ought to take pains to get the railway men’s children to school. I do not say that the railway administration must build schools, but I beg the Minister and the Government to have an enquiry made about the contents of the letter I have quoted. If it is true that so many children of railway labourers of school-going age do not go to school then the Minister must urge the provincial administration to provide the children with proper education by establishing schools in their neighbourhood. Then I have a fourth letter about railway rates. When the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) was speaking on the matter the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) made some comment, but he does not pay railway rates as he lives near the coast. When rates are too high he can inspan his waggon and send to Mossel Bay for his goods. It is we who live in the interior who have to pay heavily. The rate on a thrashing machine costing £780 is £80 from Durban to my district. Oil and grease which cost £2 18s. in Durban for 200 lb. weight are charged £1 by rail to Machadodorp, and on other articles also we have to pay a great deal. The burden on the interior is high, and there the knife cuts both ways. The farmers who produce wheat in the Cape Province get their implements and sacks much cheaper than we do, because they live so near to Cape Town that the rates are low and everything is cheaper. The farmers of Malmesbury and Piquetberg compete with our wheat farmers in the north, but they have the benefit of the wheat rates because they pay no railway rates above 500 miles.

When you send maize to the coast you also pay a minimum rate.

There are no maize farmers in my district.

I am speaking about assisting the interior.

I am speaking of my district, because charity begins at home. If our farmers keep proper books then we shall find that the railway rates from the coast press very heavily on us. I shall be very thankful if the Minister—if, as he expects, he comes back into office—will think of the lot of the daily labourers, the education of their children, and the railway rates for the farmers who live in the interior.

The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) quite rigntly referred to the serious housing position of the railway workers, and I want to confine myself to the need of Touws River. The number of railway workers there has increased considerably, and there are more married men now than before. That is chiefly caused through the civilized labour policy of the Government, yet no provision has been made for additional houses, and the people are living in huts built for coloured people. The huts are far too small, and it is damaging the men’s health. We made representations to the Minister to build more houses, but our request has not yet been complied with. Another very important matter is that the railway emplacement at Touws River is too small. The fact that there is not enough room to shunt trains causes delay. This can very easily be remedied if the Minister will shift the workshops to a suitable place. If that is done then the people who live near the shops will be rid of the smoke and smut, and it will also provide enough room for sidings for shunting. It will, therefore, also benefit the administration. Another matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is that the people along the main line are no longer allowed to travel in the guard’s van of goods trains. The old custom was that they could do that if they bought tickets. To-day it is not allowed any more, and this causes inconvenience in the drought districts such as Beaufort West, Laingsburg, and Prince Albert. Then there is also the matter of drinking troughs along the line for farmers trekking. I have already spoken to the Minister about that, but the need has not yet been provided for. They are needed at Laingsburg and Grootfontein, and farmers have to truck their cattle at Matjesfontein instead of Laingsburg because the drinking troughs there are too small.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) with whom I do not propose to deal for more than two minutes, launched into a serious diatribe against the Minister and the Government in connection with this matter; in fact, if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) had been here, he would have said he was engaged in electioneering. He made a very serious attack on the Government, particularly on the question of the eight-hour day, and the rates of pay for civilized labourers, and he quoted a petition from a large number, I suppose, of his electors, to say that, in spite of the very ungenerous increase of 3d. a day, they are not in a position to maintain themselves. The hon. member told us, and I agree with him, that, as far as the finances of the railway administration are concerned, money is being put away from time to time into certain pockets, and, but for that, the railway would be able to pay its workers a decent wage, and give the conditions of labour that we are demanding. That is not being done, and although the hon. member waxes eloquent, he says he is under contract, and he can do nothing more than simply voice his resentment. I suppose the contract lies in the manifesto, which has been issued by the Prime Minister. I suppose, if he did not carry it out to the full, perhaps the contract would not be carried out as far as he is concerned, and so he is trying to have it both ways. We are not in that position. We are dealing with the matter in the same way as we have dealt with it right through.

On a point of personal explanation, in reply to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) I did not say anything of the kind. My remarks did not relate either to a contract or to election purposes. What I said was that the Labour party of this country entered into a contract with the Nationalist party to carry on the Government of the country.

One matter I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to is the question of railway workshops. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) and others have continually drawn the Minister’s attention to the type of engine we are getting, and to the fact that we are getting German engines which are apparently proving defective. We also have an agitation that when we import engines and rolling stock, we should import them from Great Britain. Whereas between the two types of engines, I would like to see our rolling stocks taken from Great Britain, which is our best customer, I would much rather see our rolling stock manufactured in South Africa. When the present Government came into office, one of the prospects held out to the public was that we were going to have our own rolling stock workshops. When the election with over, a commission was appointed. What is peculiar about that commission is that the commission was not appointed to inquire into the advisability or otherwise of erecting our own workshops, but it was appointed upon the distinct understanding that the workshops formed an accepted principle by the Government, and all it had to do was to go into the details to ascertain how and where it was most suitable to erect these workshops. Therefore, the House is entitled to know why, when we are nearing the next election, we are still busy arguing whether we should import our rolling stock from Germany or from Great Britain. I think the Minister could have done a great deal more than he has done, namely, talk. I want to deal with another point, and that is in connection with our Railway Board. After all, the Railway Board with the Minister as chairman is a body responsible for the control and administration of the railway service of South Africa, one of the biggest services and one that can compare very favourably with companies and services in other parts of the world. It is a huge national undertaking, but I do not suppose because it is run by the State that it should be entirely in the hands of civil servants. I believe from the point of view of socialism all the Government businesses must be run in the most efficient manner possible. I feel very strongly, and I have indicated it in connection with municipal services, that the people who administer these services should be business men. I do not want to say a word in disparagement of those at the head of the department, but the best possible technical man is not necessarily the best possible business man. While it is desirable to have the former you should have the best possible business men at the head of affairs. I blame, the South African Party for having introduced the system of treating the Railway Board as a political organization where defeated members of Parliament are put, or perhaps politicians who can find no place in the Cabinet. Unfortunately the present Government has pursued the same policy. I submit what should be done, in the interests of the country, is to see that the Railway Board, instead of being a resting place for politicians, should have the best business brains on it and see that the railway service is carried on in the best possible manner. I wish the present Government would make a move in the direction of seeing it is done on the best possible lines. They might give a very good lead to the country—there is a vacancy on the Board at present. Touching on our amendment, we were told our enthusiasm was somewhat belated. After all, might I remand the House that as far back as March, 1926, we raised that question in a very lengthy and almost a full dress debate in this House. We pointed out that if railway men had an opportunity of expressing their political opinions they would probably change the complexion of the Pact and have more people in it to extend this principle for which we are standing, and we pointed out with all the force at our disposal that it was the duty of the Government to introduce the eight hour day. A definite pledge has been made, not only to the railway men, but to the Labour Party, in consideration of the Minister of Defence taking a place in the Cabinet. I gave the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) an extract of a speech made by the Prime Minister in which he pledged an eight hour day, with the exception of such cases as very out-of-the-way places where it is not possible to carry out that principle, and that the men working there would be remarded in the direction of other advantages. We dealt so fully with the matter that the Minister of Defence got up in a rather angry manner and dealt with the charges levelled against him for a breach of faith. In 1927 and 1928 the same took place, and at every conference resolutions on the subject were passed, and pressure brought to bear on our representatives in the Cabinet to see that these pledges were given effect to. Now we are told it is electioneering. In the first place during those three sessions to which I have alluded, we were not in a position to divide the House, because we were members of a caucus in which we were in a minority; and if we had gone away from that, those who now accuse us of electioneering would have said we were disloyal and “you come and embarrass us in spite of your promise.” Is not the Prime Minister, and are not hon. members electioneering when they speak on any question? We are always appealing to the public and hoping that what we say here will reach the electors. If it was electioneering in 1928 it could not have been so in 1926, but it must have been in 1924 before the election, when the Minister and others went about promising these things to the railway men. If it was right to electioneer then, why is it wrong now?

Circumstances have altered.

That may be; but as far as the railwaymen are concerned, they are not quite satisfied that circumstances have altered. The only change is that while we are continuing to press these matters on the attention of the Government and because we are now free from the incubus of that caucus, our friends on the other side are not yet free. They say they believe in everything in the amendment, but cannot vote for it. Theirs not to reason why; theirs but to vote or die.

Who died, you or they?

Let me remind my hon. friend that on one occasion he died in an election, and thereby lost the job of Minister of Agriculture. We are also told that everyone is satisfied, and that there is no dissatisfaction in the railway service. In March, 1926, when the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), spoke on a number of these questions, he told us that as there was a surplus as far as the railways were concerned, there should no longer be dual rates of pay, and that the men were tremendously discontent. These dual rates of pay are still in existence, but discontent has disappeared, because the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) says so. There is the other question of the 8-hour day. We have been pressing for that from time to time. In the days when the eight-hour day was introduced by the late South African party Government, by Mr. Burton, and when the present Minister of Labour and his friends were not so considerate, it was said that it was an accepted principle, but on that occasion the present Minister of Labour demanded that they should have a six-hour day, and pointed out; that in some cases railway workers had a 40- hour week, and in other cases a 44-hour week. Workers throughout the world are taking up the policy that while men are looking for employment they should have a share in any employment which may be going. That is a very admirable principle, admirably enunciated, and I cannot do better than place it before this House. I want to ask the Minister of Railways, is there no dissatisfaction in the service? Does he recollect bringing in the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) in order to placate the railwaymen there.

And they gave me a most excellent hearing.

Of course they did. They are decent people, and the Minister has the capacity to command an excellent hearing. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) will agree that there is a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction among the men at Germiston. It is no use saying there is no dissatisfaction. I go further, and say that we in South Africa are committed to that principle, because after the Washington Convention in 1918, the South African representatives not only said they could accept that principle without any modification, but it was owing to that convention that Mr. Burton introduced it. If he was wrong in taking it away, how much more wrong is the present Government in not restoring it when they have such a surplus. Then we take the matter of differential rates of pay. It stands to reason, and anyone who has the slightest business acumen should realize that if you have two people doing the same job, and one of them is paid one rate, and the other is paid another and inferior rate of pay, you cannot have contentment and efficiency. There is not the incentive. It is an unbusinesslike proposition and the Government should have done away with it long ago. Now I take the question of the 10s. a day minimum. It is perfectly true that the Minister has given these men an additional 3d. per day. Someone described it as a contemptuous tickey. It is certainly contemptible, and yet the Minister talks about people living beyond their means. I do not think that can be applied to the railwaymen. As far as these men are concerned, they are entitled to that minimum. It is bad policy to bring these people into the urban areas, where the cost of living is higher, and to pay them a wage on which they cannot live decently.

Why were they brought I there?

They were attracted by the job, and I am glad of it, but once you have industrialized them, you must pay them a decent wage. I go further, and say that if you pay them a minimum of 10s. per day, you would have greater efficiency and contentment. That is the experience of even other part of the world—if you pay a decent wage, men do decent work for you. And you have a greater output. That has been the experience everywhere. In the United States on the Railways, the minimum rate of pay for labourers is 12/- a day. The result of the higher rates of pay in the United States has been that with its population of 120,000,000 people that country has a greater spending capacity than the 400,000,000 people in Europe and the 1,000,000,000 people in Asia. The result is that the farmers naturally benefit. They have a better market for their requirements. The manufacturers benefit. The farmer is better off if he has a good local market than if he has all the time to look to export. The manufacturers are in the same position, and so are the commercial men. There is more money being circulated to the advantage of everybody. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) said he rather doubted whether the South African party would give 10/- a day if they got into power. I agree with him. The only chance these people have of getting any attention is to have a free and untrammelled Labour party strong enough to force the attention of the Government to this matter. The probable result of the election is that the two great parties will face each other in a stalemate, and if there are sufficient independent Labour men in this House they will be able to exert their influence for the benefit of the community. That is the only method in which the matter can be dealt with. In spite of all the forces which are likely to be arrayed against us in this coming election, in spite of the fact that we are likely to have a huge Nationalist party press against us, and a huge South African party press. I believe that large numbers of the people of this country will realise that it is imperative to have a Labour party in this House, and an untrammelled Labour party. The wage and salary earners, the small farmers and the small business men will begin to realise that there should be a definite cleavage on economic lines under which you will have all the conservatives sitting on one side of the House, and the representatives of those who wish the country developed in the interests of the majority of the people sitting on the other side of the House. It is only when you get that that the interests of the railway men will receive proper attention.

I wish to refer to the Auditor-General’s report on railways accounts, page 52—

In the course of a reply to the member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) the other day the Minister of Railways and Harbours stated that the value could not be given in respect of the ton mileage. I cannot understand that. The ton mileage is worked out by the Accountants’ department, and surely a saving such as this should be credited. You have this year a debit of £41,361 against the elevator system. If this amount, this saving effected, is credited, that debit would be materially reduced, I should like to ask the Minister if he has got any specialists connected with the elevator system. In Canada and in the United States, and even in England, where elevators are used, you will find that they have a proper elevator officer. I believe such men are available in South Africa and I recommend the Minister to consider such an appointment. When introducing this Bill the Minister of Railways and Harbours referred with sympathy to the mining industry, but he has negotiated the Mozambique Convention, the effect of which is that there is a loss of 20,000 natives to the industry. A loss of 20,000 natives means a reduction of the number of Europeans employed on the mines by fully two thousand.

The hon. member cannot discuss mines now.

The railways will lose revenue through not carrying the number of natives they used to carry, and that will lead to a reduction of 2,000 white men now at work on the Rand mines. I will now point out how heavily railway rates greatly handicap the profitable working of the gold mines, more particularly the low grade mines. In 1914 the railway rate on explosives from Somerset West to the Rand was 8/4d. per 100 lbs.: the present rate is 13/8d. The difference on 480,000 cases—the number Carried last year— means an additional £80,000 paid by the mining industry to the Union railways. The rate for the conveyance of the raw material for the manufacture of explosives, including nitro-glycerine and sulphur, was 3/- per 100 lbs. from Durban to Modderfontein in 1914. The railway rate is now 4/6d., which represents an additional £25,000 a year. A fifty-ton truck of coal which costs £4 10s. at Witbank costs £17 10s. for railage alone by the time it reaches Johannesburg, the great difference being accounted for by the high railway rates. The railway administration admit that over £1,000,000 annually are paid for the conveyance of coal between Witbank and Johannesburg. Hitherto steel headgear for mines was always classed as mining machinery, but quite recently it was put in a class on which a higher rate has to be paid. The railways classifying steel head gear as “steel angle bar channels.” A specific case has just arisen which shows that on a steel headgear weighing 209 tons an additional £415 was paid in railage. Then the pass fees in the declared native areas for recruiting for the mines are double what they are to other areas, the result being that the mines pay for natives proceeding to the mines an aggregate of £200,000 in pass fees. On the other hand, we have a reduction in the railway rates on unworked iron and steel, meaning a saving of less than £5,000 a year. I do not know whether the Minister means us to regard this as something in the nature of an Easter egg, but it looks somewhat cynical in face of the figures I have given. I am informed that certain European labourers who have recently gone to Pietermaritzburg were offered accommodation in the native quarters, but they declined to occupy them because the quarters were infested with vermin.

The place was thoroughly cleaned and renovated.

I had the information from some of the labourers who would not occupy the premises. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) made an eloquent appeal yesterday in connection with the McTaggart case. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) charged hon. members on this side of the House with preventing McTaggart’s case receiving a sympathetic hearing because of their attitude in regard to railway accidents. I think the hon. member’s plausible and contemptible statement will not be accepted by the country. I am sorry my colleague is not present to hear what, I say, but the railwaymen know the McTaggart case from end to end, and when the time comes, they will take care that, he will receive the treatment he deserves.

I wish to refer to the road motor services. The accommodation provided for natives on the administration’s motor vehicles is most unsatisfactory. They have to travel at the back of vehicles in a compartment which is also used for the conveyance of goods. Owing to the roughness of the road, these goods —many of a heavy nature —are constantly thrown about, and eventually there is bound to be an accident. Wherever I go, the natives complain that they are not fairly treated in this matter. One other matter, also in connection with the road motor services, is the salary paid to the driver. An assistant driver, if under twenty-one, gets 4s. per day. Think of the responsibility that man has, think of the value of goods and human life. If he is over twentyone an assistant driver gets 5s. 6d. a day. As far as I can see there is no overtime in the service. They have to face bad roads, wet weather and breakdowns, and very often they are driving 18 hours a day for 4s. a day. If they are away at night, as they often are, an assistant driver under twenty-one gets 1s. Out of that he has to find his supper, and bed and his breakfast the next morning. If he is over twenty-one he gets 1/6. It is not fair. I do not think the Minister realizes what these men are paid. They are not white labourers. They have responsibility, hard work and hardship. I have a letter which says they sleep under or on the motor bus. To ask that of these men is not fair. I do think you might pay your drivers, especially your assistant drivérs, more than you are doing now. The drivers themselves are not too well paid. A third-class man gets £15 per month, a second-class man £20, and a first-class man just over £20. I cannot see why they are not paid the same as engine drivers. They have just as hard work, just as responsible, indeed I think more so, and their hardships greater. I think this motor service has come to stay. It is replacing the railways in many cases, and I hope the Minister will seriously consider putting these men on a proper basis.

I was raised to heights of enthusiasm when I listened to the future ex-member for Salt River. I thought I had at last found in the Creswellite party a champion who was going to recognize, not the last contract into which he entered, but the first contract to which the later one was subservient. At the election of 1924 we entered into a contract on behalf of the Pact. I know that I did. That contract was with the working-class electors of the constituencies we are alleged to represent, and we undertook to urge the fulfilment of the promises they made by us and on the strength of which most of them voted us to Parliament.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

This is apropos of what I have to say. I have some regard for that contract. I cannot understand the new-found perturbation of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) in the matter of railway finances. I have heard him criticise the administration very acidly indeed. Previously his attitude was that it was his business to put up the things the workers on the railways wanted and it was the business of the administration to find the money. That is my attitude. I want to know why his has changed. There are a few matters I want to bring before the Minister’s attention. They are things which I think demand some serious attention. I myself, not being a financial pundit, would not venture to criticise the financial policy of the Minister and the railway board, but I do propose to indicate some outstanding grievances and injustices. There is the matter of railway servants who in the discharge of their duty may come into conflict with certain irascible passengers. I know of several instances where ticket collectors on trains, and guards, in carrying out their duty have been reported by passengers. In some of these instances the railway official was taken before the courts, not for assault or any such positive offence, but for theft, and he had to defend himself. Each one was found absolutely innocent and the charges were proved to be groundless. But in each case the unfortunate official had to meet his own expenses, amounting to £18 or £20. I think that when the administration is very largely dependent upon the faithful service of these servants in their relations with the public, they should have the consciousness that so long as they are carrying out their duty, the administration is behind them. When the work of a departmental head is called in question by Parliament, the Minister invariably stands by his official, and he is right. But the official in his office is not exposed to the dangers of misrepresentation to which the running staff man is subject. But the attitude of the administration differs to the prejudice of the workman as against the staff man. I do not see why there should be a difference in the attitude of the Minister when it is a wage earner on the one hand and a staff official on the other. I want to congratulate the Administration on the way in which it has realized the possibilities of the mobile and flexible motor vehicle. The officials in charge of that department are highly efficient, but I want to support the plea for better pay for the drivers. Where you have valuable plant at the mercy of one or two men, far removed from workshops, they are entitled to a wage commensurate with their skill and responsibility. I say that it should be on the level of that of the ordinary engine driver. In one or two instances motor services have had to be withdrawn from rural areas because “pirates” come on to a certain route when there is a good deal of freight to be lifted. I think the Minister ought to realize that if he has to survive in what is a competitive business, he must give his local officials authority, subject to the approval of the higher authorities, to bring their rates down to the competitive rate in areas invaded by “pirates”: otherwise his service must be disorganized. With regard to wages in the service, they should be on a par with wages as laid down by the Wage Act for similar work. Indeed they should come under that Act. When the Wage Bill was before the select committee, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) urged that very strongly, but they were opposed by the Chairman of the Committee, the present Minister of Defence. Another item on which I want to congratulate the Minister is the encouragement of South African industries in the buying department. A great stimulus has thereby been given to employment in the Union. I want to mention the case of foremen at small out-of-the-way stations where there are only two officials, a stationmaster and a foreman. I knew of a case where the station foreman has been on night shift for 12 consecutive years. Surely some provision should be made for a case like that. A married man does not see his children in daylight. Then there is the matter of the giving of employment to mechanics in the workshops. I know a young man who served his apprenticeship as a boilermaker, but for various reasons could not get work on the mines and tried to get into the railway workshops. I tried to help him to do so, but he found he could not be employed there, because he was not what is called a fire-box hand—because he did not get the Opportunity of serving an apprenticeship in the railway workshops. It means that only the sons of railwaymen have a chance of being employed there in that particular occupation. I think an outsider should have at least some opportunity of getting work in the shops. After all, the railways belong to the people and are supported by them. Another matter I want to deal with is that a number of very fine men who strongly merit promotion are kept back because they cannot pass Standard VI. I know a man of forty-five who has worked for many years on the railway, and has worked his way up. He works periodically as a relief ganger for three or four months, and then is drafted back to the ordinary work of the gang. If he is good enough to act as relieving ganger, there is no reason why he should not be placed in charge of a section and given the wage and status of a ganger. But it seems preposterous to expect him to pass such an examination. I want to say a word or two about the catering service to which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) referred in terms of eulogy. I endorse what he said, but it is no encouragement if the Administration maxes this form of occupation unattractive to our boys by reason of low wages. I know there are many difficulties, but I think that some encouragement should be given to that branch, which seems to me to be the Cinderella of the service. No section of the service comes into closer contact with the public, and no section exercises a greater effect upon the impressions of the railways gathered by the travelling public. The men employed in the catering department are a good class of men, who add dignity to the service. I would like to point out one or two things in regard to their duties, which are more onerous than those in any other section. A driver takes an engine, say, from Johannesburg to Kimberley, and then goes back home again, but the men in the dining saloon have to go on with the train to its destination. They must wait there for the return trip. This means that their occupation keeps them on the road almost entirely. Many of them are married men who maintain homes which they seldom see. They are supposed to get accumulated time off in lieu of overtime, but it is not given on a ratio of equality. I believe the accumulation of their leave suffers very much, and I think something might be done for them in that direction. In regard to tipping, for the Administration to depend on the tipping system for adequate payment for services rendered is degrading to any service. If I offer one of these men a tip, I feel that it degrades not only me, but also the man who receives it yet passengers know that if they do not tip it is a hardship for the man who gives good service for beggarly pay. What is the use of spending money in the technical schools to tech boys to qualify in the catering of trades if the Government itself sets an example of niggardliness by paying less than a living wage. It is also a matter of principle, because if the Administration agrees that the tipping system shall go on, then I say it is quite as legitimate to tip in connection with the other branches of the service as it is to tip in connection with the catering department. The Administration buys for millions a year, and I do not see why tipping should not also apply in that regard. I know that it does not, but after all is said and done, tipping is backsheesh. If these men were paid an adequate wage, the tipping evil would gradually eliminate itself. I think the catering department should pay more attention to the question of buying. It has the reputation of buying in the best market, but I have had it on very reliable authority that often top prices are paid for inferior stuff. The Government auditor might usefully turn his attention in that direction. Now in regard to housing. Our railway capital debt is something like £150,000,000. All men who work do so to maintain themselves and their dependants in a home. I admit that the railways are doing a very fine national work in this respect, but I do not agree with those who say that the railways alone are paying for the reclamation of these people. The whole country uses the railways: rich and poor, farmer and industrialist, capitalist and wage-earner. If there is one service more than any other which should contribute to the maintenance of the European population, it is the railway service. It is the pool of national activity. I will quote from two or three pay-sheets. Here is one dated 24th November, 1920, in which a railway labourer got 8/6 a day, plus an allowance of 2/6 per day, the nett pay for one month was £14 7s. 10d., which with war allowances amounting to £5 12s. 8d., made a total of £20 1s. 6d., while the total stoppages were £1 17s. 3d., making the nett pay received for the month £18 4s. 3d. On the 22nd February, 1927, this man was still on the same rate of pay, but, of course, not in receipt of war allowances, and the gross total of his earnings was £13 4s., but his stoppages had risen from £1 17s. 3d. to £4 12s. 10d. So that his net pay to-day, plus housing, instead of being £18 4s. 3d., is £8 11s. 2d. His wages, therefore, have gone down by £10 a month since 1920; amongst other stoppages rent has been added to his charges since then. If the Minister were to ear-mark £1,000,000 for housing I am sure he could carry out housing at £200 per family, and this would enable him to put up 5,000 homes for that amount. That would add to his indebtedness two-thirds of one per cent, only, and it would give these workers a chance to live at a more decent standard. If you do not house these people properly, all your efforts on their behalf will be in vain. This is not electioneering, and I say that the imputation that this is electioneering is an utterly unfair and unworthy one, and nobody knows that better than the people who make it. If we had not been putting these matters forward in our conferences and meetings, there would have been no trouble in the Labour party. It is because we have advanced these things and maintained that these are the things which we came to this House to do, that we have trouble. If we had said, “We are quite willing, on the conditions which at present obtain, and without any guarantees of benefits or reform, to send those three Ministers back to the Cabinet for another five years”, all would have been peaceful.

No.

That is true. Here is a record of minutes of a meeting of our National Council held 18 months ago. It was moved by Mr. Pearce and seconded by Mr. W. Sutherland that the Labour party asked for a wage for labourers in Government employment of 8/- a day.