I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. ROUX seconded.

Agreed to.

House to go into committee on the report on 29th July.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded.

The South African party, during its whole term of office, had piloted this country through one of the worst periods of its history. The party had stuck consistently to its sound principles. It had given every section a fair and a square deal. Their policy was not a policy of race hatred, but their aim was to unite the two predominant white races of this country. The policy of the South African party was not one of oppression, but one which simply acknowledged the rights of the non-European races. With us this is a matter purely of fair play, a matter of ethics pure and simple. At the same time the South African party was as steadfast as any other party in its patriotism, in its devotion, and in its maintenance of European civilization. Unfortunately, our efforts have not been appreciated by the unsympathetic majority of the rural electorate. Since 1924 world conditions have changed, and to-day Governments all over the world are in a flourishing state. We, too, in South Africa are flourishing, perhaps through no efforts of our own, and the time is now opportune for parties to sink their petty quarrels and to look to the good of the country. If we have any real patriotism in us, let us discontinue to brood over the past, let us appeal to the higher instincts in our people, let us forget and learn, and discontinue the strife, bigotry, misrepresentation and racialism, and give the country the much-needed attention it deserves. The time is opportune, the Government has the funds at its disposal, and I hope sincerely that it will embark upon schemes of development, schemes for the betterment of the country, and schemes which will bring happiness and prosperity to the people. What the country needs most of all to-day is: Land development, irrigation, and, later on, immigration, closer settlement, up-to-date and more scientific methods in agriculture, and intensive cultivation. When we examine this problem closely, we find that the Union with its 472,000 square miles carries a European population of 1¾ millions, which is 3.75 persons to the square mile, and taking all races into consideration, 15 persons to the square mile, whereas, European countries are carrying from 300 to 700 people to the square mile. The Nile allows Egypt to carry 900 people to the square mile, I believe. Belgium carries 665, the Netherlands 537, the United Kingdom 481, Italy 319, and Germany 323. What does South Africa carry? 3.75 persons (Europeans), and 15 persons (all races). The district of Gordonia carries .73 of a person, Fraserburg .95 of a person, Kenhardt 1 person, Namaqualand 1.22 persons, and Calvinia 1.23 persons, to the square mile. These are significant facts. In many respects we have already reached our limit, and we shall begin to stagnate if we do not wake up. The absence of immigration, of industries, of real prosperity, and the exodus of much of our best manhood, are all due in a great measure to a short-sighted land policy. I am not going to suggest at this stage that the Zambesi should be diverted from its course, but things which are seemingly impossible to-day will be an urgent necessity tomorrow. In a century’s time the population of the globe will have almost doubled itself, and the eyes of the world are upon Africa, and Bechuanaland and the Zambesi are two factors of outstanding importance to South Africa in the not distant future. Let us look at other countries. New Zealand borrowed 50 millions and increased her carrying capacity. America transformed waste and arid regions into lucerne fields and orchards by throwing barrages across her rivers and conserving her natural resources. Our salvation also will be found along these lines, and my regret is that a whole-time Minister has not been appointed for the task. It has become a well-worn saying that the farmer is the backbone of the country. That may be so, but I doubt it very much in this country, judging by income tax returns. Generally speaking, farming is not a payable proposition under present conditions. On the coastal belt, in the northern Free State, in parts of the Transvaal and Natal, where rain is abundant, the old-established farmer who bought cheap land years ago, and the men who have inherited land, are more or less prosperous, because they do not calculate on present-day values, but the newcomer, who has to pay anything from £7 to £25 per morgen, will do better to invest his money in Government stocks. In these districts to which I refer ground has advanced to such an extent that farming has become an uneconomic proposition. And what of the hinterland. The Karoo and the 700-mile stretch from Worcester to Mafeking, the districts of Calvinia, Prince Albert, Fraserburg and Ladismith, will carry stock only in good years, and these are few and far between. We are, therefore, faced with this position—that good ground is too expensive, and upon cheap land the farmer is, generally speaking, always drought-stricken, and the relief of distressed farmers has become a permanent institution in this country. We are, therefore, faced with an impossible position, and a position which requires our immediate and careful consideration. This state of affairs can be overcome, and now is the time to overcome it. The solution is cheap land and cheap water. “Back to the land” is a parrot cry, unless we can give a man cheap water. The best and most economical scheme has not yet been touched. In Griqualand West there are great possibilities. It is a land of mystery, and, apart from its mineral wealth, there are great agricultural possibilities. All the great rivers flow through Griqualand West, which in itself is an enormous factor. There is an abundance of rich soil, and if the Kromellenboog scheme could be proceeded with, approximately 300,000 morgen of land could be brought under irrigation. Riparian owners are willing to sell their ground at £3 a morgen, and, under the completed scheme, land should not cost more than about £20 to £25 a morgen; whereas, under present schemes, land is costing from £70 to £90 a morgen. Surveyors have been busy, aeroplanes have made their appearance, promises have been made, and this is where the matter rests to-day. Irrigation on a large scale will allow us to double our population in time, will solve our poor white problem, will solve the unemployment problem, and, to some extent, will solve the native problem. There will be room for industries, and the country will prosper, and we shall no longer look to other countries with envy. The possibilities of the north-west are great, and I wish to emphasize the fact again that the Government should turn its attention to that area at once. I am not placing unsound propositions before the House. This is a sound proposition, and I could mention several others. Hon. members are apt to forget that Griqualand West has poured into the coffers of this country a million pounds per annum by way of taxation, for the last 40 years. Griqualand West brought a tottering Government to its feet in the eighties. It was the starting point of prosperity in South Africa. It has been a real asset to this country, and it is high time that it was given some consideration. It is a totally wrong policy for the Government to continue to tax the mineral wealth of a country without putting something back into the land. It is contrary to all laws of nature, and it is a policy which will ultimately lead us to disaster. In pleading for Griqualand West, I do not wish to be parochial in any way. The country and its population are calling for development, and the north-west is, without doubt, the area upon which to concentrate, for its possibilities are great.

One is usually inclined to overlook a speech by a new member, but the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) said something at the beginning of his speech which we cannot allow to pass. He is a newcomer, and accuses this side of race hatred

To a point of order. I made no insinuations, but if the cap fits, the hon. member can put it on.

I would recommend the hon. member to keep cool. I was astonished at the hon. member saying: “We as the South African party are far removed from race hatred,” and that it is a thing that we on this side now ought to abandon. I cannot believe that the hon. member for Beaconsfield seriously believes this himself. That was not our experience in Beaconsfield, nor did we find it so throughout the country during the past few months. If there ever was an election during the past 15 years in which race hatred played a great part, then it was in this election, and it all came from that side. In the towns they swept up the race feelings of the English by employing the flag, and the German treaty. To now come here and pay that we used race hatred is ridiculous. The result of the election plainly shows it. In the towns where the Opposition succeeded in stirring up race hatred, they got votes, but that is all they got, beyond where the votes of the natives helped them. When they come to towns they always used those matters which excite English race feeling. Are there any hon. members who will say that the use of the flag for such purposes is a good thing? It was used for that purpose by the leader of the Opposition; no wonder that candidates belonging to his own party disapproved of it, as, e.g., Mr. Reitz, candidate for Bloemfontein (North), who openly stated from the platform and in the newspaper that he did not approve of it. My own opponent, a sensible Sap., Cdt. van Breda, also said that he disapproved of it. The raising of the question in the election was, therefore, challenged by his own people. As for the German treaty, the Minister of Finance will remember how that was used against us. What was the argument? “A treaty with our enemy.”

Who said that?

The Sap. leader at Knysna said it. But here in the House the treaty was not opposed as a treaty with an enemy. But let me mention something to show how they went to work. The insinuation was that this side fanned race hatred, but I want to quote a letter which the South African party, over the name of Louis Esselen, sent to the German voters in the Union. It reads as follows—

What do the “Vote British” people say about that? Mr. Esselen continues—

On the one hand the English electors are swept up with the German treaty and on the other an official pamphlet is sent to the German electors by the South African party.

Have you no sense of humour ?

Yes, I admit it would be a good joke if the matter were not so serious. On the one hand the electors are swept up by a treaty with the “enemy” and on the other their German friends are told that the South African party also buys in Germany. Then there is another instance. I have been told that in the Barberton constituency where an English-speaking person stood against the South African party candidate, the Afrikaans-speaking people were told: “How can you vote for an Englishman” ?

Who says that?

It was told me.

The Nationalists said it.

No, not the Nationalists. They would not tell others to vote against their own man.

Nationalists did vote against him.

So you admit it! And who then said it to them if it was not the Saps.? Further, what about the action of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at Herschel, where he said to the natives: “There flies the Union flag. Where is the Union Jack that always protected you?” He did not add against whom the Union Jack had always protected them, but in that way he stirred the natives up against the Nationalist party, and used the flag for electioneering purposes. If the hon. member for Beaconsfield is serious, and I do not doubt that he is, then I want to ask him why he does not start with his own party which has stirred up every section of the population. We know how things went in Natal, and now we find that the Natal press give as the cause of the defeat of the South African party in the Transvaal: “Their spineless moderation.”

Who said that?

The “Natal Mercury” said it. And they stated that the South African party could only win if it stood by British ideals and traditions. There is not a word about South African ideals or traditions. Those are the experiences in the election campaign, and it is idle for the hon. members opposite now to say that they stand for racial peace.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The amount asked for in this Bill is intended for one month. We only have funds up to the end of July, and now want an additional sum of £3,000,000, expecting the main estimates to be passed before the end of August. There is no alteration in the main estimates, which make provision for an expenditure of £31,181,118. This is merely a supplementary estimate which deals with the way the surplus during the last financial year will be applied.

In this Bill the Minister has asked for a further expenditure of £3,000,000, and the only explanation given is that it is something of the same amount of expenditure asked for on previous occasions. We have discussed the financial matter of the railways recently at some length, and I think I can assure the Minister we are going to discuss it at greater length when the budget comes before the House. I think that the Minister is setting the country a very bad example, if he expects the whole vote of £3,000,000 to go through without due discussion.

I am not asking the House to do that.

We have the position here that on the railways we are spending far more than on our other national services in the country, and while the Minister of Finance does at least give us some indication why he requires an extra amount to be voted, the Minister of Railways and Harbours does not give us any indication whatever. Although the railways constitute the largest taxing machine in the country, and the Minister can tax as he wishes, while the House has no veto. The revenue of the country has increased from 16½ to 28 millions, and the expenditure from 24 to 28 millions. On the other hand, the revenue from railways has increased from 11 millions to 31 millions, and since 1924, from 21 to 33 millions, and we hape no indication from the Minister as to why we have a request for further expenditure. When we are asked to expend these enormous sums, I feel that we are at least entitled to have the fullest information possible before this House. Expenditure for this year will amount to 29½ millions roughly, an increase of £1,000,000 roughly from last year. In the early part of the year he asked for £11,000,000, and he now asks for 2½ millions. The expenditure on railway estimates will amount to £31,000,000, an increase of £1,700,000 over last year. The Minister first asks for 12 millions, and is now asking for a further £3,000,000, and this is far more than the Minister of Finance has asked, and we are now asked for 1½ millions additional for a period of five months, which, for the year proportionately would be 3¾ millions more than he originally asked for. We can only go by the reports we have seen in the “Railway Bulletin” and the “Gazette,” and we find there that there have been great fluctuations in the railway income. Taking the last six months of the financial year, we find that in September last there was a shortfall. In October there was an improvement and a small surplus, and in the following three months—the summer months—there was a substantial surplus. In February the deficiency of nearly £100,000, and in March, again, a small surplus, and the result for the year was a surplus of £295,824. In April there was a surplus of £28,429, but in May a deficit of £65,066, which left a nett deficit of £36,587 at the end of May. This is as far as we are favoured with information. One thing is clear, and that is that there is no great falling-off, but at the same time there is no increase in the receipts from the railways, and yet expenditure has been regularly increasing. We have no waterways as they have in many other countries; we have a country of very great extent and of long distances, and the whole of our agricultural and industrial future depends upon cheap transport, on speedy transport and good transport. Yet, with the present system, there is no hope of appreciably bring down railway rates. The Minister may say that he has not a sufficiently large income to enable him to do that, but his predecessor, when year after year he found himself confronted with a deficit, boldly decided to reduce railway rates appreciably. In fact he reduced them by £3,000,000, and the following year he was rewarded by a surplus of £1,500,000. That is a very good example set by a business man for the Minister to follow, and I trust he will do so, for, unless he reduces the rates, there is very little chance of the country being developed. It is useless to have high protective tariffs for the encouragement of industries, and at the same time to over-charge those very industries for the transportation of their materials and their products by train. Month after month the branch and suburban lines are showing losses. The Minister has at last given us a white paper showing the losses which have been incurred on the working of branch lines for the year ended 30th September, 1928, based on the actual results for four months in the year, i.e., two months of seasonal and two months non-seasonal traffic. In one case there is a loss of £45,000 for a line 270 miles long; the Touws River to Ladysmith line, 88 miles in length, shows a loss of £26,000; Sterkstroom to Maclear, 171 miles, deficit £36,682.

Who built those lines?

It does not matter who built them. Let us take a couple of the branch lines in the Orange Free State—Harrismith to Warden, 35 miles, deficit £4,863; Springfontein to Koffiefontein, 89 miles, deficit £4,869. I will give some instances from Natal: Matubatuba to Gollel, 94 miles, deficit £23,133; Napier Junction to Kokstad, 164 miles, deficit £44,493. Altogether on the 3,809 miles of branch lines, there was a deficit of £589,437 for the year. The Minister may say that we have no right to criticize the management of branch or suburban lines, because they have very serious competition from motor transport, and that he has appointed a commission to inquire into the subject. All the same, I hold very strongly that matters can be improved in many ways. Take our suburban traffic, for instance. It is managed in such a way that people are caused to leave the railways in favour of more convenient methods of travel. Suppose, for instance, you want to go from Cape Town to Woodstock by train. You have to go a long way down the town to the starting point, you have to buy a ticket, which is examined at the barrier; then you go into the train, where the ticket is once more examined, and before you reach your journey’s end it is examined for the third time. Should you have a season ticket and leave it at home, you not only have to pay the ordinary fare, hut a shilling booking fee. Compare this with the conveniences offered by the motor-bus. A man who can step from his office to the nearest point on the ’bus route is going to travel by ’bus in preference to travelling by train. You do not want a commission to tell you that, because the point is so obvious. If our trains could be run on the same convenient system as the trams and motor-buses are, a large number of people would return to the railway. Very few people travel by railway between Cape Town and Rondebosch, although the train is certainly more comfortable, and if the Minister could give the travelling public improved facilities, a large number would go back to the train. There is certainly no necessity to wait for the report of the commission before deciding this point. Last session the Minister told us that there was an increase of 4,000 or 6,000 in the number of coloured labourers employed on the railways. Where did he get his figures from, as the general manager has told the Select Committees on Railways that it is quite impossible to inform the committee what number of coloured persons are employed by the railways, because they have always been classed with Indians and natives. Last session, when we discussed the question of the Cape Town dock police, the Minister assured us that he was going to look into the matter which I raised. We accepted his assurance, but another department stepped in on the same afternoon that the Minister told us that he would look into the matter, and this other department issued an order that the police should be withdrawn from the docks. This is a very important matter, for all the merchants of Cape Town and the inhabitants of South Africa, because the dock police have had special training—not only to work on the water, but how to deal with customs, immigration and other matters. In addition to this, they had the power to effect arrests. The present dock police have not that power, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary by the chief of police and the chief of the dock police. Unfortunately for them, I have a copy of an opinion given by the Law Department, which is to the effect that unless the police employed at the docks belong to the ordinary police, they have no power whatever to effect arrest. The opinion of the law advisers reads—

The police were removed from the Cape Town docks on the same day that the Minister gave us the assurance that he would look into the matter. However, I do not blame the Minister, for, evidently, there are two departments concerned, and one department does not know what the other department is doing. People who have come to South Africa have praised the police employed at the Cape Town docks. Every shipping department praised these police. They were highly trained men, and to-day they are spread all over the Cape Flats. I want to refer to the question I put yesterday, the bulletin marked “Special Bulletin 135,” issued by the department. I would like to know why this special bulletin is the only one issued in this way. Every other bulletin issued has been issued as a general manager’s bulletin. This one is headed—

I think we are entitled to say we are not satisfied with the reply given yesterday, not because there is anything wrong in that reply, but because certain information has been withheld from us. The Minister said, in one instance, it was prepared departmentally. If that was so, what right had the general manager to put a note to the document? Then I want to know also from the Minister, why this document was issued on the eve of the general election. When we have been discussing it year after year, why has no previous document of this nature been issued? If it was issued for the information of Parliament, why was it not done when Parliament was sitting? If it was for the information of the electorate, why was it not issued as ordinary party propaganda? There is no better man than the Minister for propaganda. Why did he not put his name and address to it under the Electoral Act? This special bulletin was nothing more or less than a Nationalist statement of the case. The Minister will admit it is absolutely without precedent in the railway service.

Is it? You are quite wrong.

If you can show me it is wrong I will accept it.

As usual, I will give you the facts.

The Minister has challenged me before, and he had to walk out of the room. He must not say “as usual.” If he has not the last say he does not face the music. This is nothing more or less than a political document. No one objects to the Minister using his departmental officials to assist him, but when his department is required to issue a document such as this, he should give the department a free hand to say all they have to say about such a subject. Here we have not a word about the cost of this policy. On the contrary, we have a lot of evidence not contained in this document, and I am going to read some of it. These are extracts from documents prepared by officials of the railway department. I am not going to quote what the Auditor-General has said in regard to remarks made by officials when the subject was first read. These are by another set of officials. I do not say they are right, and I do not say they are wrong, but when you are issuing a document like this you should give all the information available, and not merely part of it. This is one extract—

Don’t you know there has been a change? You are living in the past.

This is part of the record by his officials in the Minister’s office. He has issued a bulletin as an official document, whereas he is taking all the advantages of the policy and explaining them carefully, but there is not a single word about the disadvantages, nor is there a single word about the probable cost of this policy. The Minister has not changed the policy in every way, as he suggests. There are many cases where he has not done so. The houses cost a certain figure, and whatever the Minister may say they are going to continue to cost that figure. These people say very clearly in their report that it is necessary to give these men proper houses, and you cannot build houses under £250 each. They go on to say that if you make adequate housing provision for these men, it is going to cost the administration at least £1,250,000 to start with, and up to £7,000,000 in time. There is not a word about that in this bulletin. I have a right to claim that all this information should be given to the public. On the other hand, if the Minister was prepared to sign his name and give his address, I would not have had a word to say. The Minister of Finance strongly supported complaints that were made about slums in certain towns. I went to some of the railway towns and saw some of the railway employees living in railway cottages under worse conditions than many people are living under in District 6. If we go to Naauwpoort we shall find many men put in houses since the South African party went out of power. There is not a word said in regard to the uncivilized pay for civilized men. Does the Minister tell the people that the man brought from the country districts to the towns, where living is expensive, rent is high, and the expense of a large family great, is to be paid from 7s. to 8s. 2d. per day? The Minister has gone beyond all bounds in issuing a document which contains information which only partially supports the real case, and supports it from a party point of view.

I am sorry that I feel obliged to rise again to reply to the last speaker. The hon. member complained about the Minister’s bulletin or that of the department and called it political propaganda, but will the hon. member say that it contains untruths? No, he admits that its contents are true. But I should just like to ask him about his plea for the publication of the truth, and thank the Minister for the issue of the bulletin by which we got accurate information. I have here a pamphlet in connection with railway matters prepared by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), published by the South African party, 41, Parliament Street, Cape Town, which gives the following information about white labour—

That is an absolute untruth. That is why I am glad that this correct information was supplied, so that we could know what the position was. Yet here we have a responsible member, the hon. member for Sea Point, at that time, and now still, prospective Minister of Railways, issuing such an inaccurate election pamphlet. The hon. member is so concerned about facts, let me quote something else from his little book. He gives, inter alia, a list of the various deficits and surpluses on the railways and gives the following information to the public—

All the time the hon. member was including all the present Minister’s surpluses. That he calls accurate facts. That is the example he gives, and then he wants to come and talk here about the necessity of incontrovertible facts. Then I come to another strange thing in the hon. member’s pamphlet—namely, where the hon. member speaks about the underestimating of expenditure by us and then he mentions two grain elevators in the harbours and thirty-four on the countryside, and in addition, the electrification of the Natal main line. This the hon. member gives as examples of underestimated costs. Why did not the hon. member add that it all happened under the South African party administration? Those things have to be told to the people, who possibly know less about them than the hon. member for Sea Point. But now we come back to the question of white labour. There are a number of questions in the book which might possibly be asked at meetings, and the hon. member then gives the reply to be given by South African party candidates. If the question is whether Mr. Jagger dismissed white labourers and put natives in their places, the reply to be “No, he only took white labourers from the branch lines because they were not economic, and he placed them on the main lines. There were, however, fourteen hundred white labourers more on the railways when the Minister (Mr. Jagger) left office than when he assumed it.” That is an absolute untruth. What he meant was probably the white staff, but what he says is “white labourers.”

Mr. Moore says it.

You are so concerned about the issue of the bulletin, then just read it a bit. To a question, “Are you prepared to support the civilized labour policy on the railway?” the South African party candidate must answer—“No one in the service will suffer.” That is the short catechism which the South African party candidates must study. But the hon. member for Sea Point nowhere says whether he supports the civilized labour policy or not. Probably the hon. member means to convey that those who are in the service will remain, but no more will be taken on.

Nonsense.

Why then did you state it, if it is nonsense? I do not wish to go further into it, but just to indicate to the Minister what wisdom is here preached. When a country farmer at Naauwpoort drove the hon. member for Sea Point into a corner, on the pamphlet, his answer was “Yes, but it was not intended for publication.” I just want to point to the inaccuracies and untruths in the pamphlet of the hon. member who is now so much concerned about truth.

In view of the prosperous conditions of the railways I was surprised in listening to the Minister when he was introducing his Bill not to hear that the Government had adopted the eight-hour day principle for men working on the South African railways. A principle long overdue. South Africa has been very free from industrial trouble for the past five years, but the Minister knows just as well as I do that the writing is on the wall, and the Government will do well to heed it. That Minister knows what a great change has taken place in the constituencies in which railway men predominate both in the Cape and Natal. This is due to railway servants having registered their dissatisfaction at non-redress of grievance. One of their greatest grievances is the non-adoption of the eight hours’ a day principle. We know that private employers are bound to stand by this principle, and the Government are violating it in such a way that it constitutes scientific robbery.

What?

Well, what is it? A railway man has to work 96 hours in a fortnight. The 96 hours are pooled, so that he gets no overtime until he has worked 96 hours in the fortnight. This is how it applies. A man leaves his home at 8 a.m. in the morning and returns at 9.40 in the evening. That is 13 hours 40 minutes. During the day he has worked six and a half hours, and is booked off for the rest of the time, receiving 2s. 6d. for booked-off time, so that thus he does not earn a day’s pay. On the succeeding day he may be employed without being booked-off for fourteen hours, and the hours over eight hours are transferred to the previous day’s working time. That is how the system applies. I do not say that the booking-off system can be done away with, but I say that it should be applied in such a way as not to be so great a hardship. What the railwaymen of the running-staff ask for is that each day shall stand by itself. I would point out to the Minister that his predecessor adopted the principle of each day standing by itself. If the Minister disregards the feeling which is deep-seated amongst railwaymen, I think trouble will ensue. The wonder is that we have not had trouble before. It is only because of the great patriotism of the railwaymen that trouble has not materialized. Another grievance is the dual pay in the railway workshops. I know that this was introduced by the Minister’s predecessor, but that does not make it just to have two men working at the same bench, one, a new entrant, receiving 18s. a day, and his mate receiving 20s. per day. These men are doing identical work, and working at the same bench. If these grievances were put right we should have a more efficient railway service. One hears that the levelling-up required to abolish dual pay would cost £60,000 a year. It would be worth it. I suggest the reduction in the vote for ambassadorial appointments in order that the pay of these railwaymen may be increased. The pay is not high to-day in view of the increased cost of living, and the present Government is largely responsible for that. If one looks at the things necessary for a working man’s family I do not think it can be said that the present pay of 20s. per day is too high. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will indicate that the Government are prepared to meet the railway servants in the directions I have referred to. Then there is the question of double trial. That is a sore grievance. I challenge the Minister to quote any other country where the double trial system is in vogue as it is here in South Africa. The cases of guard du Preez and that of driver Liebrant, of East London, are well known. The treatment meted out to them should not be tolerated in a country of South Africa’s status. I wish also to bring to the Minister’s attention a gross injustice which happens in my own constituency every day. The railway servants there travel by a ’bus provided by a private contractor. It leaves three or four times a day from the Pietermaritzburg station for a depôt called Mason’s Mill, some three of four miles distant. Some of the men of the running-staff book on at Pietermaritzburg station, and some book on at Mason’s Hill. Should any accident happen to that ’bus and men be killed or maimed, those who have not booked on at Pietermaritzburg station would receive no compensation, and those who booked on at Pietermaritzburg station would, in the ordinary course, be compensated. It is right that railway servants should be subject to that risk? Why not allow them all to book on, or as an alternative, make it a condition with the contractor of the ’bus that they will be liable for compensation in case of accident. During the recent election I saw a good deal of some of the civilized labourers. I know some hon. members call them “poor whites,” but that is not correct. They are not poor whites. They are not civilized labourers through their own fault, but through misfortune. I found they were sons of farmers in the Cape midlands, who, through the three years of drought, were compelled to seek railway employment. I appeal to the Minister to agree that the time has arrived when the pay of these men should be increased. They are in a blind alley occupation, and I hope they will be given a chance. I was in their barracks at Pietermaritzburg, and I found that those unfortunate lads were attempting to play football in the backyard of their compound. Cannot the Minister see that these lads get a place where they can have the ordinary healthy exercise of young men? There is plenty of space for a football ground near the compound. I want to tell the Minister that the grievances I have mentioned are genuine, and that unless the Government remedies them, the feeling respecting them will grow stronger. The railway shows a profit of £340,000, and I ask the Minister to apply some of it in the directions I have suggested.

It is interesting to hear members who formerly represented rural constituencies now speaking on behalf of railway and mining constituencies. It was quite encouraging to have such an excellent labour speech from the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane), and the only regret I have is to find that it received so little encouragement from members on his side of the House. The hon. member told us about the deep-seated discontent existing among railwaymen. I remember once upon a time when some of us used to draw the attention of the House to this discontent, and we were called “agitators,” but I am glad to see that it is becoming quite respectable to mention these matters now that these complaints are voiced by members of the South African party. The hon. member is perfectly right in what he has said. The changes he has referred to in the representation of constituencies in this House are, however, not due so much to love of the new members on the part of industrialists, as to discontent with the old members. I hope my hon. friends will remember that, and that they will endeavour to create industrial views in this House which will bring about the remedying of the grievances they have mentioned. That is what we want in this House, so that these matters may be dealt with on their merits rather than from a party point of view. I was disappointed to hear the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). There has been so much misrepresentation of the white labour policy, that I think it was important that the Government should issue a statement as to its origin in the railway administration. I think we are indebted to the Minister for that statement, and instead of criticizing him, we should thank him. I think that the House will have to congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours for the clear statement which he has given instead of criticizing him. With regard to the policy of introducing civilized white labour I think it is because the South African public are satisfied with this that we do not have the South African party in power to-day. The people of the country would rather stick to the devil they know than the devil they don’t know. The South African party have placed no definite policy before the country, so far as the white labour of the country is concerned. They have accepted the position. There are some matters involving additional expenditure which I desire to bring forward in the hope that even at this late hour the Minister may do something to remedy the grievances felt on the railways. Obviously it was difficult for the Minister to make concessions to the railwaymen before the election, as his opponents would immediately have said that that was bribery and corruption. But now that the elections are over, the Minister should seriously consider whether he cannot make some concession so as to ensure contentment in the railway service. Take the question of the differential rates of pay, which is creating a tremendous amount of discontent. But apart from that it is calculated to lead to inefficiency, because you cannot expect two different persons employed on the same job to do equally good work when they are not receiving the same remuneration. The only way to ensure contentment and efficiency is to pay the same wage for the same work, by raising the lower rate of pay to the higher scale. Then there is a determined desire on the part of the railwayman for the restoration of the eight-hour day. There my hon. friend (Mr. Deane) was rather at a disadvantage, for he was crying for something which his own party had done away with. I hope that the Minister and the members of the Government will take this factor into consideration. Recently very considerable satisfaction has been expressed by the Nationalist party and the Nationalist press at the decision of the Imperial Government to discontinue the policy of imperial preference. I hope this satisfaction will be shown by the Government of the Union following the example of the Government of Great Britain, as one of the first things the latter Government did was to notify Geneva that it was going to ratify the eight-hour day convention. I hope our Government will follow the example of Great Britain in this matter, as that will do a great deal towards bridging some of our difficulties, as there is still a considerable amount of unemployment in the Union. From a business point of view it is unprofitable to have some people working longer hours than are good for them, while thousands of other people are walking about unemployed. There is another point which should be taken into consideration, and that is the question of overtime. I have not the slightest doubt that railwaymen do their work well, hut when they have worked the regular number of hours, and then put in a further spell at overtime, they cannot give the same efficiency at the end of an unduly long day, as they display during a day in which they work only the normal hours. If we had an eight-hour day, a good deal of overtime could be dispensed with. I also wish to draw attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs as regards the rates of pay for civilized labour. I was very delighted to find a recruit in the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). That is, I suppose, the reason he has taken his seat on the cross benches. He supports the payment of 10s. a day, a principle which is being more and more accepted by people of different political complexions on the ground that the higher pay a workman receives the better service he renders, and the greater will be the spending power of the country. With regard to the constitution of the railway board, I may say—without any disparagement of the great abilities of the gentlemen who constitute the board—I believe the time has arrived when the unfortunate policy introduced in 1910 by the South African party, of utilizing the Railway Board as a place in which to give jobs to discredited or unsuccessful politicians, should be done away with, and that in future the boards should consist of capable businessmen who will administer the railways in the most efficient manner in the interests of the community as a whole. We stand, more than any other section, for efficiency in administration and efficiency in the government of this country, and it is because I believe that that I am anxious to see the Minister when opportunities occur to appoint new members on the railway board, shall see that such appointments are made of people who are there because they are entitled to be there as very able and efficient businessmen, and not because they are political friends.

Passing through the Great Karroo and seeing the ramifications of Government in my country, I felt elated; I felt it was a very fine thing to take part in the government of this country, but the eternal positive and negative again applied, and the impression I had in these vast spaces was totally obliterated by the atmosphere of this House. The greatness of our country, the spirit of it, is not to be found in this chamber. I feel that something is lacking. We talk about national ideals, but it seems to me if we interpret the spirit of it surely it is to be found in this House. I saw an attack made on the new member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys), an attack which I do not think was justified. I do not think it is just or fair.

Who started it?

We always have that cry. I believe the new members on this side are going to take new members opposite by the hand and say that between us a better spirit shall prevail in this House and throughout the country.

Glad to have your sympathy.

I am expressing the earnest desire that the younger men on both sides should have a higher ideal of government than has been expressed by some prominent members of this House. That is my sincere and earnest hope. I want to approach the Minister in this way—that I feel members of the Opposition should make it their duty to help and not obstruct this great undertaking. As we look at the permanent way we see it is not what it used to be. I look at the carriages and coaches and see they are not what they used to be. The old finish and artisanship are not there to-day. I wonder if that is not an indication of a gradual slackening down of the spirit and efficiency of the whole undertaking. Are these weaknesses an indication of a general slackening? We believe the Minister is an earnest and sincere man. From the point of view of his administration he has done his best. The question of cranes to lift heavy weights is a matter that needs attention, but what we want most of all in Durban is an investigation. Is the Minister going to investigate the question of the electrification of the railways between Pietermaritzburg and Durban? All we ask for is an investigation on its merits of the question of extending the electrification from Pietermaritzburg to Durban. I am quite sure the Minister will grant such an investigation by the Electricity Commission on the one hand, and the Railway Department on the other. Until that investigation is made there must always be clamouring to go back to what I consider a very necessary development. I want to give a few figures. The booking has increased by 106,000, season tickets 116,000, parcels dealt with 910,000, goods and mineral traffic 502,000 tons, wool bags 86,000, sugar 100,580 tons. Maize was 194,000 tons. These are the increases during last year and give an idea of the development of the Natal line. What we do bring to you is an absolute growth in material development. Here is another argument why you should investigate this question. On the other hand we have the question of electrification from the point of view of its being a payable proposition. Messrs. Merz & McLellan, who reported on this matter, have stated that electrification must be profitable and surely that is another reason why we should go on with it on that section. The matter has already been dealt with, and therefore I do not want to deal again with the question of the eight-hours a day except to say that from the point of view of the principle I am sure it is desirable. I would like the Minister to go into the question of time-tests in connection with piece-work. This question may ultimately be the cause of tremendous trouble—I speak with some knowledge of managing men in industry and manual labour. This question is one which needs more sympathetic handling than has been given to it by railway officers under the administration of the General Manager. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to that aspect. I must thank those hon. members who have listened to me and given me their attention.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention once again to the expediting of the train services between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. When the New Cape Central Railway was acquired, it was announced that the route via Mossel Bay would become the main one between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. The distance between the two cities is 673 miles, and the time taken is 41 hours. In other words the train thunders along at a rate of something like 16 miles per hour. The time taken between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth via De Aar, a distance of 839 miles, or 166 miles further, is 39 hours. When I brought this matter forward before, the Minister, with his usual fine courtesy, promised to give it attention. The result is that the train from Cape Town now starts half an hour earlier and is due to arrive at Port Elizabeth—I do not say it always does—a quarter of an hour later than before, so that this speedy journey takes three quarters of an hour longer. I would ask the Minister to give his kind attention to it again; and with a very different result, I hope. Let me remind the Minister that Port Elizabeth is a growing city and constantly developing. It does not agree with the Minister politically, but he will not be influenced by that for one minute. A railway service like the present is leaving us in the Dark Ages, especially when you compare it with the service between Pretoria and Cape Town. Take the service between Port Elizabeth and Grahamstown—a distance of 107 miles. By day it takes seven hours, if the train is up to time, and 9½ hours if you take the night train, and it is not always up to time. We know that the Minister is very much exercised with the question of road motor competition. Although the road between Port Elizabeth and Grahamstown is, for about 29 miles, about the worst in the country, the distance can easily be covered in four hours If there was a good railway service, people would go by rail, but if there is a difference between four and seven hours, can the Minister wonder that passengers who wish to go to Grahamstown, if they possibly can, go by motor? The Minister should go into the whole of the services. I know that the route between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth via Mossel Bay cannot be speeded up to the same extent as the main line, because the rails are still being re-laid over the Cape Central section, but during the summer season a train is run which shows that you can easily save three hours. I think the importance of the two cities is such that there should be an improvement.

I did not intend speaking, but I represent a constituency which contains two important railway centres, and I therefore wish to take the earliest opportunity to bring the interests of the railwaymen to the Minister’s notice. I know quite well that in such a body as the railways there are an immense number of grievances, often personal grievances, but possibly real ones, and that the administration is not always able to satisfy everyone. I know that the Minister, and I hope that the Administration is very well-disposed towards the staff, not only the people working on the lines, but the whole staff. One-third of the registered voters in my constituency work on the railways, and hon. members will understand that I have made a lot of acquaintances amongst the people on whom I was dependent, and still am. I am convinced that if the railway votes in Colesberg all go against a candidate he will not be elected. But besides this, it is my personal view that the interests of the railwaymen ought to looked after and their grievances removed. Apart from small details, it is clear to me that we can collect the grievances under a few heads. The people in my constituency are strongly against the local allowances which they do not get. This amounts shortly to this, that the Orange River makes such a distinction that a man living on the opposite bank gets an allowance, while the one on this side, a few hundred feet off, does not. I know that this does not come directly under the Minister and his Administration, but it is a strong argument, and I can understand that they object to it. Then several of the people feel that privileges they formerly enjoyed have been taken away. They have had free transport of the goods they required from the nearest port, but when they are transferred the privilege is taken away. The third point is that the people feel that there are two rates of payment for the same kind of work. That is true. It commenced under the South African party regime, but there are two rates of payment, and a man who does the same work as another and works on a lower scale gets less wages while he sometimes is possibly the better workman. The people cannot understand why they are treated in that way, and it is difficult for me to understand it myself. Then there is another thing I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. That is the eight-hours day. The men are glad that the number of people to whom the eight-hours day applies has been extended under the present Administration from forty-nine to sixty-six per cent. They understand quite well that it is not possible to apply it everywhere, that in some places it cannot be done, but what the people cannot understand, and I include myself amongst them, is that stationmasters at small stations who possibly work twelve hours a day, and also do the work of a postmaster as well, get no compensation or additional leave for it. They get nothing for it, no leave or other recompense. I think that the man who does not work eight hours, but sometimes twelve hours a day, and has also to do postal and telegraphic work, ought to get a certain amount of compensation. There is another small point, namely, that the houses could be improved. I listened attentively to the speech of an hon. member opposite this afternoon about the housing position at Naauwpoort. I want to point out that there was a house at Naauwpoort that was condemned, and this house was used during the election campaign as a model house to show the propagandists of the South African party. The propagandist could then talk of the little house they had seen. That is the way the South African party went to work. There are many railwaymen living at De Aar and Naauwpoort, and there are men who every five years have an unnatural love for these railwaymen, but when the election is passed that unnatural love passes too. One hon. member opposite is reported to have said that there was a writing on the wall, but the writing was not meant for the Nationalist party; the writing was such that even the hon. member for Sea point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) had the same experience himself when he got motions of no-confidence at De Aar and Naauwpoort. If that proves anything, then it is the writing on the wall for the South African party. The mistake of that party was in sending their future Minister of Railways to De Aar and Naauwpoort, as now they have less chance there than ever. If they were wise they would have come to me to learn. If they had kept their future Minister away they would have had a much better chance.

I rise merely to emphasize the appeal put forward by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I would like to say that we left Port Elizabeth at schedule time on Tuesday afternoon, 3.45, and reached here to time notwithstanding the fact that we were 80 minutes late at Oudtshoorn. The time was made up, showing clearly that the period of journey can be shortened, and that we could have left Port Elizabeth an hour later—a more convenient time. I think I might also ask consideration on behalf of the Minister’s own constituency (Humansdorp). It is served by a branch line, and for that reason I have no doubt he will say that we must go slow-hit. I may say that the passenger train is scheduled to leave at 11 a.m. and to arrive at Patentie about 6 p.m.—seven hours to cover 70 miles. I have to do the journey frequently, and notwithstanding roads none too good and plenty of gates, the motor-car does the journey easily in three and a half hours. I appeal not alone because of the long time taken, but because of the awkward hour we are timed to arrive—dark in winter—with the Gamtoos River to be crossed, at times dangerous, and would ask that arrangements be made so that people who live 14 or 15 miles away will have the chance of crossing the river during daylight. I would also like to pay a tribute to the catering steward on our train—the food was good, and attention excellent, while the carriage, although antiquated, was clean and comfortable.

I wish to refer to the grievances of railwaymen. If the Government are satisfied that such grievances exist, it is their duty to see that they are remedied. In my constituency there are many railwaymen who feel that they are suffering under a grievance, such as the differential rate of pay, and in other respects, and, although they do not adopt a hostile attitude, feeling they have a grievance, they wish to have it remedied along constitutional lines, and I hope it may be possible for the Minister to give an opportunity of going into these various grievances, and in calling the attention of the Minister to these, I would ask him to give us some day in which we can deal with the matter. With regard to the question of the civilized labour policy, it has been asked whether the South African party approves of the employment of white men on the railway as labourers. I thought the South African party had made it perfectly clear that they approved of it, because it was the South African party who introduced the system. But what we do feel is that when the Government brings a large number of people from the rural districts into urban centres, and pays them a wage of 5s. or 6s. per day, then the Government is taking upon themselves a large measure of responsibility, because that has been responsible for the sinking of these men in the moral scale. Rural workers come into towns, and live under conditions they are entirely unused to. A man may be married, and he has to seek accommodation, and he drifts towards the slums. The Government should consider whether some measure of guilt does not lie on their shoulders for the lowering of the moral standard of these people. That is where the South African party has cause for anxiety, and that is why the South African party has consistently said that the bringing in from the rural districts of white labour to the railway is quite a good thing if these labourers are paid at a decent rate. The Minister may ask where he is to get the money, and may say, “I want to run my railways on business lines.” It has been suggested to the Minister that this matter of employing white men in this way on the railway is really one of unemployment relief, and I consider that the money needed to increase the pay should be available as a special vote for that purpose.

I wish to put before the Minister the necessity for further railway facilities for the district of Springs-Nigel. It is true there is a branch railway to Springs already, but it is situated on a byway. It is not on the main line to Delagoa or on the main line to Durban. All the traffic of the Witbank coal area and the heavy traffic from Delagoa Bay has to be carried past Springs by several miles, and then brought back on the branch line. The Nigel district and the Sub-Nigel mine are not served by any railway branch. There are in the neighbourhood of Springs three producing mines which are served by the existing line, apart from the Nigel Township and the Sub-Nigel mine, which has no railway facilities. This drawback can be obviated by the construction of a line from Springs to a point on the Heidelberg line in the neighbourhood of Nigel. It would not be a difficult nor an expensive line, as the country which the line would cross is an easy one from a railway construction point of view. The traffic in this area is already large, while in this portion of the Far East Rand developments are pending which will still further justify the construction of a railway. The Far East Rand is and will remain the golden treasure house of South Africa. Not only will there be another large producing mine in three years—the East Geduld mine—but there will also be Daggafontein, which in five years’ time will probably be a producer. Then there is the old Nigel mine, which will probably be brought back into the rank of the producing mines by the absorption of adjacent ground. Therefore, in a very few years, we shall certainly see in this area one large new producing mine, and probably three new producing mines. Then increased attention is being paid to the virgin area now lying fallow. Between Springs and Nigel there are several farms, one being Grootvlei, on which several large mines could be founded, and there is no doubt that in the very near future attempts will be made to open up this area. Increased railway facilities must, therefore, be provided. Some years ago I made a report, for which I was taken to task on the ground that it was somewhat pessimistic. In that report I indicated that the exhaustion of the existing mines was within measurable distance, and that it was necessary for the Government to take steps to facilitate the opening up of new mines. I am thankful to say that my warning was taken to heart by the Government, and that since then new leases have been entered into, and that the prosperity of this district has been very much advanced. These facts have a very direct relation to the proposal for railway extensions in this area, extensions which would not show the same financial results as the branch lines already referred to this afternoon, which between them show a deficit of close upon £600,000 a year. A railway line from Welgedacht to the neighbourhood of Heidelberg will pay for itself from the start, and should there be no capital available for the purpose, I suggest that one of the unpayable branch lines should be pulled up and the material utilized for the construction of the line I have been advocating. Such a line would add greatly to the facilities of the mines, not only in carrying coal and machinery, but also passengers, and would provide the merchants of Springs facilities for the conveyance of their merchandise from Durban and Delagoa Bay at less cost and inconvenience than at present. It may be said that in this way we would be giving the mines opportunities for making more profits, but it must not be forgotten that all the mines in this area are leased from the state. Every penny saved in working costs largely go back into the pockets of the state, for the sliding scales which apply to these mines operate in such a way that if the costs go up the burden falls largely on the state, and if the costs go down the saving also largely goes to the state. Therefore, it is in the direct interest of the state that adequate railway facilities should be provided so as to ensure low working costs. It will also enable lower grade ore to be worked, thus prolonging the life of the mines to the benefit of the people and the Government. The increased railway facilities for which I plead would relieve the existing congestion at Germiston station. I wish to draw attention to another point. The town of Springs has one of the most ancient stations in the country, it having been built before the Boer war. The station and the railway yard are both inadequate, and both call urgently for improvement. Our coal rates are much too high. Coal is the life blood of industry, for without coal we can have no power, and without power we can have no industries worth mentioning. Therefore it behoves the state to supply cheap coal. And here I may draw attention to an anomaly. We have an Electricity Act which lays the duty on the Electricity Supply Commission of furnishing a cheap and abundant supply of electricity at every point at which it is needed. Those are the express terms of the Act, and yet the material which is needed to supply our cheap electricity is being carried at high rates on our railways. The state takes away with one hand what it proposes to give with the other. This is an anomaly which should be removed as soon as possible. I wish particularly to draw attention to two features of the coal rates that operate to the disadvantage of the mines. In regard to the high rates on coal consumed by the Witwatersrand mines, it is estimated by a competent authority that a profit of £510,000 per annum is made by the railways on the coal carried from Witbank to those mines. Now this is surely a most inequitable position that we should make the mines on the Witwatersrand pay for the losses on branch railways throughout the country. I will indicate in particular how unfairly this burden rests on the shoulders of certain mines. It may be said the rich mines can afford to pay these heavy rates, but all the mines are not rich. There are many low-grade mines, mines which have not paid dividends for many years. There are the E.R.P.M. and the Randfontein Estates. Each of these large mines probably contributes not less than £50,000 profit to the coffers of the railways every year. These two mines are not rich mines. They are mines that paid no dividends for years, yet they contribute not only to the expenses of the railways, but to the profits of the railways. That is an anomaly that should be wiped out as soon as possible. It has often been said that the railways do no more than furnish their customers with a service which is being paid for, but here the mines are not merely paying for services rendered, but, in addition, they are furnishing the railways with a handsome profit. I wish the Minister to very carefully scrutinize these rates to the Witwatersrand mines, which are so adjusted that the rates are particularly high up to a limit of about 100 miles from the coal mines. After that they become more equitable, but they are so adjusted that they fall heavily on the gold mines. I want also to show how the high rates operate against the interests of the coal mines themselves. I refer to the rates for carrying coal from the mine to the coast. These are so heavy that it has diminished the amount of coal sold for bunkering and export. We have been told it is the intention of the Minister of Mines and Industries to introduce a Bill to found a research institute to ascertain to what extent our coal resources can be utilized for oil fuel and other purposes. A far more rapid expansion in the exploitation of our coal resources would take place if the coal rates were diminished, and if customers wishing to buy our coal could buy it at a lower cost. I therefore impress upon the Minister that this question of cutting down our coal rates is one of the most important we have to deal with in this country. We have magnificent coal resources, and it should be our duty to exploit those to the fullest possible extent, so that not only the customers of the coal mines, the gold mines and other industries can benefit, but that the coal mines themselves may also directly benefit by the extended exploitation of these splendid resources available to them.

It is most interesting to hear the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) if the House bears in mind the report issued by him some years ago in a very pessimistic strain about the prospects of the East Rand. Of course, he now speaks in a rather different capacity. I am pleased to hear he does hold these views with regard to the development of the East Rand. With regard to his plea for a branch line, he appreciates that the present programme is still under construction, and until such time as we have completed the 1925 programme, the Government will not come forward with a new one. His remarks about the railway station will be borne in mind. I am in somewhat the same position as the Minister of Finance. Hon. members are always pressing—the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is one of them—for economy. They say we must economize and the railways must be run on business principles, but they are only too anxious to press the claims of their own particular area. The hon. member now makes the interesting suggestion—I wonder if he is making it on behalf of the South African party—that we should take up some of our branch lines in the country and put them on the Rand. He has also told us our coal rates are too high. Will he tell us, on behalf of his party, where he would shift the burden if they were reduced? He mentioned a certain economist, an economist who wrote to order. Does he also adopt his suggestion with regard to raising the rates on agricultural produce? Does he want to reduce wages? Are we killing the coal industry? The facts are just the opposite. The export coal rates are about as low as they were before the war. No, the hon. member speaks without his book, and I suggest to him that he gets hold of the real facts. I would like him when we deal with the main estimates, to tell us just where we should shift the burden. I think the House and the country would be very interested to hear this from him. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) raised the question of expediting the train services. I thought they would have given credit to the system manager at Port Elizabeth for the excellent work he has done in that regard. We have not completed, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) admitted, the relaying and reballasting of the old Cape Central line, and until such work is completed and the bridges strengthened, we cannot use the heavy engines.

Delay at the stations.

The officers of the department are as anxious as hon. members opposite to accelerate our railway services, and when you have to deal with difficulties such as they have, it is impossible to do more than they have done.

What about the Grahamstown line?

The hon. member knows perfectly well that we have not heavy rails there.

Then you must lose traffic.

The hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) has dealt with the question of the permanent way, and made the extraordinary assertion that it has gone back in condition. I give the assurance that the condition of the permanent way has improved tremendously during the last few years, and I say this on the report and the assurance of the chief civil engineer. The statement the hon. member made may cause alarm to the public, and I would ask the hon. member not to make such irresponsible statements.

What about last year’s certificate?

Does the hon. member suggest that the certificate was not unqualified?

What about the year before?

Does the hon. member want to go back to 1924? The same remarks apply to the workmanship of coaches built in our workshops. It is a grave reflection on our artizans. The hon. member may have seen an imported coach, of which there are still a large number, I am sorry to say. I can assure him that the workmanship in our shops is excellent. The hon. member dealt with certain matters with regard to Durban while we may usefully discuss when the loan estimates are on the Table. He also complained of the time tests introduced in our workshops. Well, we have made great improvements under the new chief mechanical engineer, who is doing good work in lowering our working expenditure without in any way infringing the rights of our employees. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has spoken of the political constitution of our Railway Board. We have heard that allegation before. We have had excellent men serving on the board. There was the late Mr. Rissik and Mr. Orr, who, in a sense, might be called political appointments by the previous Government. There was also Mr. Wilcocks. They all rendered excellent services on the Board. It is said we want business men, but I ask where will you find better men than those named?

We are merely following your argument when you sat on this side.

What a hopeless sort of remark to come from the hon. member. This House must have been most interested to hear the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) in his sudden love of the railwaymen. Really, if the hon. member, in the course of his remarks, did not clearly indicate that he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, has the Minister any right to accuse me of speaking with my tongue in my cheek? I ask the Minister to withdraw.

If the words were used, the hon. the Minister must withdraw them.

I am prepared to withdraw them, and to say that the hon. member was not serious.

The hon. the Minister has no right to say that.

While addressing the House on the 8-hour day and rates of pay, he spoke jocularly, and in a spirit of levity, said that all railwaymen required perambulators.

That is untrue and you know it.

The hon. member used those words. The hon. member has evidently not heard that we have had a committee inquiring into the application of the 8-hour day, and that we have carried out practically the whole of that report. The members of the committee definitely recommended the spread-over system. Before the elections I on several occasions, both inside and outside the House, said that we were not prepared to restore the old grade of pay. My colleague has also given the reason on many occasions. The new entrants have come in under the new rates of pay, fully knowing what those rates are. The South African party might eventually have made the new rates of pay applicable all round, because my predecessor had said at the time that he would only continue the old rates of pay definitely for one year, when the whole question would be considered. The Government is not prepared to revert to the old rates of pay for all public servants. The railwaymen knew this before the election. With regard to the question of double trial, I have, on many occasions, explained to the House that under the Act of 1925 double trial was abolished. If an employee is, however, involved in an accident, and is charged with culpable homicide by the Department of Justice, the railway department has nothing to do with that. That is a charge made by the Department of Justice. The employee may be found not guilty by the court on the charge of culpable homicide, but he may still be guilty of contravening a railway regulation. If a driver, he may have overrun the points, or run into a station with the signals against him. Surely hon. members will not suggest that after an employee has been found not guilty by the court under such circumstances that we should not take action against him for contravening the regulations.

And if he is found guilty?

Then the departmental disciplinary enquiry becomes unnecessary. With regard to the civilized labour policy, and the statement that it leads men into blind alley occupations, I may say that the whole subject is carefully controlled by our supervising officers, and under the system of probationers, cannot lead these men into blind alley occupations. If hon. members will read the bulletin to which reference has been made, they will find that the whole scheme has been a wonderful success, and that the country may now look forward to the time, not far distant, when we shall be able to run our railways with our own young men. That is something to be proud of. Do we find pride in this development from the Opposition? No, it is carping criticism that we get from hon. members opposite year after year. Take the ordinary men who came into the service as labourers. Over 8,000 of those men have been promoted to higher positions. Does that look like leading them into blind alley occupations? No. The whole trouble is that hon. members opposite have not been cured yet of their black labour idea. The elections have not yet taught them what the people of South Africa desire. There has been no change of heart. No wonder the country dealt with them as they did, and they will remain where they are until they study the welfare of the people of South Africa. I now come to the railway expert, the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl).

Try to be decent.

The hon. member will receive courtesy, but he will get the truth at the same time. His complaint was that expenditure has risen. Let him look at the revenue side. Has he forgotten that we had a surplus last year? Notwithstanding the fact that our expenditure has risen, our revenue has risen also. Does he expect our railway system to be standing still when the whole country is making progress? The hon. member has not realized that the period of stagnation came to an end in 1924. Since then the country has made advances as a result of a policy of development. Our expenditure has risen, of course, but so has our revenue, because if our revenue had not risen we should not have been able to show a surplus. Surely the hon. member must appreciate that if revenue exceeds expenditure, then revenue must be increasing. We have shown a handsome surplus. The hon. member has referred to tariff reductions, and to those made by my predecessor, but he should remember that during the period of Mr. Burton our railway rates were increased by approximately £8,000,000. The further you reduce rates, the more difficult it becomes further to reduce them. It is very easy to make the first cut of £5,000,000, but it is not so easy to make further cuts. We also have cut the rates to a very appreciable extent, and we shall continue to do so when it becomes possible. As for the losses on branch lines, were not many of these branch lines built during the South African party regime? The hon. member wants us to spend about £12,000 every year to supply him with an additional report. We run our branch lines in the most economical manner possible, and the officers of the department are watching the working of the branch lines very carefully indeed. The hon. member has made certain suggestions in regard to the suburban services, and I shall have great pleasure in passing on these suggestions to the officials responsible. I may say that there is a committee specially dealing with this question, and they are going carefully into the whole matter. I now come to the matter of the bulletin. When the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) made his extraordinary statement, I told him he was wrong as usual, and I am now going to prove it. In 1920 a bulletin was issued in connection with rates and fares, and in 1921 there was one in regard to the financial position and grain elevators in 1923-’24. In Bulletin No. 14 of December, 1920, page 5, there appears a statement dealing with the pay and service conditions of artizans which was published by the direction of the then Minister of Railways. There is therefore nothing new in this publication complained of. I asked the general manager to submit a departmental report dealing with the employment of civilized labour, showing the results achieved up to the 31st December, 1928. He submitted a memorandum to me, and in view of the importance of this question, I decided that the facts should be given to the country. The Government has no regrets with regard to the introduction of the civilized labour policy. The hon. member knows that the facts are as set out in the bulletin, and he has not been able to contravert one single statement made therein. The appeal made by the Government in this regard has been most satisfactory.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.