We on this side of the House have often had reason to blame the Opposition for not succeeding in the budget debate in making a proper attack but I do not think that we have ever had more reason in the past than to-day. Those who want to know why the attack is so weak can find no better reason than the fact that the Opposition have no leader.

Presumably they have three.

When a few days ago the question was put to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) whether in the absence of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) he was the leader he denied it. We know that the person who was intended for their leader, as he himself admitted, “missed the bus,” and the leader of the Opposition is at present engaged in discussing with his intellectual friends the great question of life. If he has discovered what life is he will probably try to blow some into the dead bones of the South African party. Whether he will succeed in that we very much doubt. The country knows very well in which party to find life and will support that party in increasing measure. The country also finds that the party opposite will have to enquire into the problem of life. When we go into the attack of the hon. member for Yeoville we find that it is based on two things, firstly, that we spend more than the previous Government. Our answer to that is that the South African party also sinned with its expenditure and that if the Government undertakes work which will benefit the country it spends more annually. The test of the question is whether that money is well invested and the hon. member for Yeoville was not able to disapprove of any of the amounts mentioned by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), namely, reduction of debt, increased interest on the national debt, posts and telegraphs, pensions, grants to the provinces, Union education, etc.

What about ostrich feathers?

The Government has never run away from the assistance it has given the ostrich farmers, and the farming community is very thankful to the Government for the sympathy shown to the farming population. In connection with the attack of the hon. member for Yeoville I may say that he could not find fault with any of the large sums which caused the increased expenditure and his attack only amounted to this that £20,000 more is being spent on ambassadors. We on this side of the House at once understand that the disapproval of this expenditure indicates the fact that the South African party does not want to see our international status maintained, and we want to say at once that we on this side more and more want to see our international status upheld. The charge by the hon. member for Yeoville is characteristic of the attitude of the imperialist in South Africa. He not only objected to the appointment of ambassadors abroad but he tried to ridicule it—how we in South Africa—a small people could venture to appoint ambassadors. That is the outlook of the imperialist, the man whose vision is bounded by warships and who thinks that a country can only take action if it has a large fleet and can conquer other nations. Our outlook is different and we think that a country can take action if it is self-dependent. If a country has self-dependence then it can exhibit it in the world by showing its status and by playing a role in the array of nations in the world. We to-day have the acknowledgment of our international status and we want to uphold it in future, and see to it that the South African people, though small in numbers, shows to the world that it possesses greatness of character and that it is prepared to carry its own message to the nations of the world. We are willing to take our part and to hear the expenses—a small amount according to the estimates. If hon. members opposite disapprove of it then on this side we might in future go further. We are to-day incurring unnecessary expenditure which we could easily replace and if hon. members opposite will not permit us to uphold our independence then it may be necessary for us to do things with which they will not be pleased.

This is a threat.

I think hon. members opposite cannot get over the fact that our country is in a state of prosperity and that they can find no fault with the Government. The hon. member for Yeoville admitted that the condition of the country was very prosperous and he could find no other cause for that but that the sun shone on this Government. If that is so then the people are very fortunate in having a government on which the sun shines, because according to their own opinion the sun did not shine on the previous Government. The fact that the country is prosperous now has not come about automatically. The Government took steps in the first place to get rid of that dark cloud of unrest and industrial trouble and it was in consequence of the action of the Government that we have rest and quiet in the country and as a result of that we have the prosperity which otherwise would not have existed. When five years ago we assumed office there were strikes, revolutions and dissatisfaction in the country, but the action of the Government and its sympathetic treatment assured progress on account of the creation of proper co-operation between labour and capital. When the Government had brought that about the sun shone and we had the position of prosperity the hon. member for Yeoville admitted. The sun is shining brightly on us to-day because the Government has taken out the timorousness out of our economic heavens by immediately taking strong action in connection with our economic affairs. That could never be said of the previous Government. This Government immediately showed that it had a clearly defined policy in connection with the principal economic questions—mines, industries and agriculture. It was prophesied that if this Government came into office the mining magnates would withdraw their money and close down the mines, but to-day we find the mines in a more prosperous state than ever before. The prophecy was not fulfilled, and it has been proved that this Government will properly deal with those matters, that the mines were one of the chief pillars of our economic structure and that mineral development was for the benefit of the country as a whole. When a few years ago there was danger on account of the discovery of diamonds on a large scale, the Government thought it necessary to assume control, to prevent a collapse of the diamond market. That in some cases went against the interests of the mining magnates and also sometimes against those of the small diggers, but the interests of the country in general were put in the foreground and the Government saved the country from certain fluctuations of the diamond market. To-day we have the mines in a prosperous state which would not otherwise have been so. I think that the country in general also appreciated the steps the Government took, and that after the rich discoveries in Namaqualand it took care that the great asset did not fall into the hands of a few capitalists—as hon. members opposite recommended. Instead of that the Government preserved those riches as an asset for the people so that the people could have the full benefit of them and the people duly appreciated it. In connection with the manufactures the Government has also shown by a determined policy of protection and support of the industries that it wants to assist to develop the factories for the benefit of the people in general. The result is that development in industrial matters is taking place to-day such as has never happened in any period of the country’s history; during the last four or five years the proceeds of the factories have increased by an amount of about £30.000,000. More money is circulating in South Africa today and this is one of the causes of greater prosperity. The South African party Government could not tackle matters because they followed no fixed policy: this Government does follow a sound policy and the people and country benefit in consequence. Further tremendous developments are pending. We know the developments of the iron and steel industry, and that the diamond cutting industry is now making a start and we may expect the obtaining of oil from coal one of these days to give a great fillip to the progress of factories in our country. As a result of the progressive policy of the Government, the greater prosperity which hon. members opposite cannot understand has come about, and which they only ascribe to the sun shining. As a result of the sound policy of developing mining and factories the farmers are also in a better position. More money has been circulated and the very farmers find a better market, for the produce than they formerly had. A few years ago the market on the Rand was practically lost to the farming population owing to strikes and revolutions. There was a general state of slackness, but on account of the rest and peace and the development in mining matters prevailing to-day, there is more money in circulation and a better internal market for the farmers. Our Government have followed a very determined policy in connection with agriculture and there is no section of the farming community which can complain of its treatment by the Government. On enquiry we find that the Government has everywhere shown that it is out to further the interests of the farmers. Government help will in future be required more and more. It goes without saying that the development of agriculture will be the largest and the easiest way, i.e., that department of agriculture for which there are reasonable markets will develop fastest. Hence we have seen that our maize and sheep farming have developed the most because there was a world market for the produce. We can compete in the world market and the result was that those branches of our farming made rapid progress. They may further develop quickly in future if the markets remain good. Another section of farming which particularly needs the attention of Government is the more intensive form of farming—fruit growing, viticulture, and tobacco farming. If those branches produce a little too much they must export and there is not a favourable market for the produce. The market must first be created and I think that this demands the particular attention of the Government to enable these branches of farming to establish a market. We have a good chance of selling those articles abroad. Take fruit growing. I think that South Africa in this respect has room for very great improvement. The countries which can compete with us because they have the same fruit seasons are South America and Australia. Australia is twice as far from Europe as we are and we can therefore always be in front of Australia and perhaps better than, but in any case sell just as profitably as Australia. The competition of South America is very great especially in oranges. Brazil will also be a great competitor, but I think the South American people are not yet sufficiently developed to be able to properly regulate the produce market and that it will take years; so we shall be able to win a good market in Europe. As for wine I think we can also get an excellent market on the Continent of Europe and in England. I now come to tobacco and think that this branch of agriculture specially deserves the Government’s notice. Up to the present we have practically only produced enough to provide all our own requirements. Now however, the production is largely increasing and it is necessary to export tobacco. I think also that there is a good market for us in the English market. That market consumes about 200,000,000 lbs. a year. My hon. friends who repeat every day that we have got a good market for our produce in England ought to recommend their English friends overseas to buy our tobacco. To-day England buys hardly a lb. from us, or any of the other dominions. The 200,000,000 lbs. is almost exclusively produced in America and my friends who talk so much about Imperial trade ought to urge that our tobacco should also be given a chance. I think it is difficult to get hold of the English market unless we take various steps to win it. The connection between the tobacco growers in America and the sellers in England is very strong and in some cases the grower has also an interest in the selling commission. The buyers of tobacco will therefore not be much disposed to buy our tobacco, and I think the Government should consider if it would not be best to establish a state supported factory in England. Undoubtedly England is the best market for tobacco, the Continent is but a poor market and we shall never get a proper price there. Smokers there use a tobacco which is not particularly high-class. We shall have to take steps to conquer the English market. I think everyone acquainted with the tobacco industry appreciates what a value it is to the country. At present we produce about 20,000,000 lbs. a year and thousands are already making a good living in the industry. By obtaining a foreign market we make tremendously increase the development of our sales and be able to provide a living for thousands more. In connection with the home market I want again to draw the attention of the Government to a few points. We are fast losing our home market as well. I said just now that we have hitherto produced about enough for home consumption but that the production was now becoming greater. The home market consumes from 15 to 16 million lbs. of tobacco a year, but we find that our neighbours are more and more robbing us of the home market. Where Rhodesia in 1925 only exported to a value of £180,000 to the Union the value of the exports in 1927 was already £711,000. When I say that the farmers in our country sell less than £700,000 in the home market then we see that Rhodesia is taking away our home market more and more, that already more money for tobacco consumed in the Union has gone to Rhodesia than to our own farmers. The Government must consider steps for protecting our market against Rhodesia and Swaziland. When once we have got the home market developed then the tobacco industry will also become one of the best in our country. The Government intends giving its attention to irrigation and if there is one thing of which irrigation can make a success it is tobacco. If that important product is not grown we cannot expect the settler to be successful. I think I may repeat that if the Government in the past has followed a definite policy, we may expect them to do the same in future and then the Government will see that the relations between the three different pillars in our economic life are healthy. It is true that the mining industry has been of tremendous value but the day must come when the gold and diamonds will be a waning asset and in pro portion as they diminish the other two pillars must assist in holding up the economic structure. We must therefore make them as strong as possible. Therefore I cannot understand the people who want to take all the wealth out of the diamonds and gold mines as soon as possible. It can only be people who look after their own interests, because those who think of the public interest will not be so hasty. They will see that the longer we can postpone exhausting the mines the longer our people will not be obliged to rely on the other two supports only. The day will however come when the other two must be strong enough. Therefore I approve of the Government’s policy of developing factories and it will possibly be desirable to establish an industrial bank. There are very many small private individuals who would like to start an industry but have not got the necessary capital. If they get an opportunity of developing as the farmers do with the help of the Land Bank we shall possibly have an astonishing development of industries. If necessary a commercial bank may possibly also be erected.

Before dealing with matters arising out of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, I would like to deal with one point raised by the last speaker. He repeated once more the statement that the South African party objected to the Government carrying on digging operations in Namaqualand, and that we wanted to hand the rich discovery over to the capitalists. This statement is not of very great importance, and probably it is of much more use on the election platform than in this House, but perhaps it is just as well to say once again that the accusation is most ill-founded. It could only be founded on the supposition that the South African party is not in favour of State enterprise and prefers to see the country developed by private enterprise.

We judge you by your past record.

In all fairness, I think I should be allowed to explain this point. The operations which the Government was called upon to perform in Namaqualand on the Merensky discovery did not pertain to mining at all but to taking out a colossal accumulation of diamonds by hand. Dr. Merensky who discovered these diamonds and the companies with which I am identified gave the Government every assistance in surveying the ground, erecting machinery and houses. I do not think it is correct to make this statement that the South African party, the mining industry and the capitalists objected to the Government picking up these diamonds, and it is not justifiable to say that the mining industry made any difficulties in regard to the Government performing their work. I want to congratulate the hon. Minister on the excellent financial position which the figures which he placed before the House disclosed. I am glad to hear hon. members say “Hear, hear.” We do recognize that the country is in an excellent financial position, and we have as much right to rejoice over that as the Government and hon. members opposite. We have had as much to do in laying the foundation of that prosperity as they have. The Minister showed us that he had realised a surplus for the year 1928-’29 of £1,765,000, which with the previous surplus made an available surplus of £3,065,000. The Minister presented his figures in his well-known lucid manner, but I regret that he gave us only cold statistics, and did not see his way to bring the analysis of the country’s economic position up to date. He made no reference at all to drought conditions or to the very serious malaria outbreak, nor did he make any mention of the mining industry and of industries generally. I have the feeling that the Minister has turned the tables on us; he wants to be able to criticize us instead of giving us the opportunity of criticizing the Government. The Only reference the Minister made to the economic position of the country was at the end of his speech when he warned us that imports were too high, and that we should regard the future with care. He has no doubt good reason for making this statement, and we should all take it to heart. No doubt it is a great shock to hon. members opposite that even with their party in power there might be a possibility of bad times. There are other signs which show us that the Minister does not believe that our present prosperity is built upon a sound basis. The bulk of the remission of taxation, namely, £800,000, is of a temporary nature. Evidently the Minister is covering his retreat; he feels that bad times may be at hand and that by making the remission only temporary he will, without imposing any extra burdens, be able to square future budgets.

Quite so.

But when bad times come he will find that the income tax receipts will go down so colossally that even the additional 20 per cent, will not help him. He gave the country very good advice in warning us about extravagance, but he did not take that lesson to heart, otherwise, rather than keeping a nest egg which this temporary reduction of income tax implies, he would have set about to reduce his expenditure. He did not make any reference to any of our industries except farming, and here he issued a note of warning. Had he referred to the gold mine industry at all he could also have issued this note of warning in spite of the fact that he could have referred to new records of gold production. He would also have had to tell the House that working costs are gradually rising, which of course has the effect of eliminating low grade ore from the payable zone. If hon. members were to study the stock exchange quotations of our leading gold shares it would give them food for thought. I may be told that the stock exchange is only a gambling place and does not serve any useful purpose, but as a matter of fact without it, and it is a most valuable institution, it would have been quite impossible to raise the large sums of money which were required for opening up deep level propositions and the leased areas on the Far East Rand: and if more mines are to be opened in this district the stock exchange will again play a most useful and necessary part.

It is therefore just as well and of importance to all sections of the House to study the prices at which the stock exchange values our various gold shares. If we do this we shall find that our very best gold shares are quoted at prices which yield an enormous return in interest; or if we put it in another way, to the casual observer it would appear that our gold shares are valued very cheaply. There must be something wrong therefore if shares in gold companies are valued at these low prices, and I will give the reason, which is that the gold mining industry is now living under the shadow of the life factor; that is to say, people are beginning to realize that if continued on present lines it will be comparatively speaking short lived. Now it is within the power of the Government to lift this shadow from the industry by assisting us to bring down working costs and in this way bring millions of tons of low grade ore within the zone of payability, and thus prolong the life of the mines very considerably; because every mine, however high grade it may be, contains some low grade ore. If the Government is willing to help they will create new enthusiasm and renew the old spirit of enterprise which will result in the opening up of new properties on the Far East Rand. I shall try to enumerate some ways in which the Government could give assistance to the industry; but before dealing with other matters I should like to reply briefly to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe). I do not propose to deal with this republican propaganda because that is one of the troubles of the Prime Minister, and he will no doubt deal with it.

I have no troubles.

The hon. member referred again to the labour position and the Mozambique Convention. Let me tell him that that convention is an accomplished fact. I will say more. There can be no doubt that it is preferable that we should have a convention between the Union of South Africa and our Portuguese friends and neighbours than that there should be no convention at all. The fact, however, remains that the total native labour requirements of mining and other industries have increased enormously during recent years. This is really a welcome sign, as it denotes progress and expansion, and does result in an enlarged field of employment for Europeans. The fear is therefore well founded that the available native labour supply from ordinary sources will prove quite insufficient for further development or even the maintenance of the present scale of operations only with the assistance of the Government, and, therefore, it is to be hoped that the Government will take such action as will make available to the Union industries further supplies of labour from areas which are not, under existing conditions, open to us. I am quite convinced that the question of the labour supply will receive the earnest and sympathetic consideration of the Government, in spite of the remarks of the hon. member for Lang-laagte (Mr. Christie) who wants to give the provincial council additional powers to tax the gold mines, which appeal I am quite sure has fallen on deaf ears. I would again enquire if it is not possible for the Government to assist the industry by inducing the provincial council to reduce the pass fees which are 100 per cent, higher in declared labour districts than in other districts, and which throw a burden of something like £200,000 on the gold mining industry, low and high grade mines alike. Next to labour the most important question is that of coal rates, which was so eloquently raised by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze). The Minister of Railways tried to brush the matter aside by suggesting that it simply meant putting the reduction in coal rates on to agricultural produce, and he challenged us to tell him where else he was to find the money. Later on in my speech I intend making certain suggestions to the Minister in this connection. I think the Minister was wrong in trying to make party capital out of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Springs, and he was wrong in trying to suggest that the South African party or the mining industry was opposed to the farmers in this country. No such suggestion was made. But I should like to remind the House of something else. At various times when customs tariffs were imposed by the Government with the object of establishing secondary industries, and when it was pointed out that the burden would fall on the primary producer and therefore on the farmer who has to sell his produce at world’s prices, the Minister of Finance pointed out that even if the raising of the customs duty should place some additional burdens on the farmer, the latter would be only too ready to assist in establishing these industries. Now if instead of putting the farmer up against the mines, the Minister explained to the farming community that the action of reducing the coal rate would result in a longer life for the mining industry and the probable opening up of new mines, all of which are of the utmost importance to the farmers themselves and to the prosperity of the country, perhaps the farmers would have been just as ready to help to preserve and to enlarge a primary industry as they are prepared to assist in the establishment of secondary industries. But there will be no need to throw this burden on the farmer, or on anyone else. Firstly the reduction of coal rates to a reasonable level would not mean that the loss would be equal to the total reduction. No one has ever suggested that we should reduce coal rates to an unpayable level, and as the reduction in coal rates would lead to increased development, and thereby to increased coal traffic, the loss might not be so very great, especially as no doubt a general increase of valuable traffic would result through the opening up of new gold-bearing areas. Moreover, it must be understood that some of the benefit of the reduction reverts back to the coffers of the State in the shape of revenue. The Government collects 15 per cent, profits tax from all the gold mines and if the reduction in the price of coal rates leads to an increase in profits, the result must be that 15 per cent, of these profits will flow to the treasury. But the treasury will derive even greater benefits as a large number of mines are worked on the leasing system, and in those cases quite 50 per cent. of any economy would revert to the State. Just because a reduction in the coal rate would benefit the general revenue or the loan funds through the leased areas, I feel emboldened to make a second suggestion as to how the money could be found for these reductions in the coal rates without throwing a burden on anyone. Since 1925-’26 the Minister has set aside £250,000 a year for the reduction of interest-bearing capital. The total amount set aside including this year’s provision is £1,000,000. I think that this provision is quite unnecessary and I am backed up in my opinion by the report of the departmental committee of the railways consisting of the chief civil engineer, the chief mechanical engineer, the chief accountant and the financial assistant to the general manager, which was laid on the Table at the end of the last session. This departmental committee reported on “the depreciation of permanent way and the rolling stock,” and on page 8 of their report they say—

Then again they say—

And further they say—

and then they come to the following definite conclusion. The committee then registered the following definite conclusion (p. 13)—

In the selfsame report they lay down the schedule of depreciation on a very conservative and lavish scale, and the Minister of Railways in his estimates does provide for this depreciation and renewals on the highest scale laid down by this committee.

Do you associate yourself with that?

Yes, I think I am in good company. I fully endorse their recommendation and there is no need whatever to set aside annual contributions for the reduction of interest-bearing capital. If the Minister adopted this change he would, without throwing any burdens on anyone be able to meet the legitimate demands of the mines for a reduction in coal rates. Now I want to suggest another method to the Minister, which will enable him to effect a reduction in the coal rates, and that is probably the very best method. My suggestion is that the Minister shall set about to increase the efficiency of the railway service. The Minister wanted to satisfy the House that the efficiency of the service is going-ahead by leaps and hounds, and with the object of doing this he quoted one figure. He told us of the improvement in the operating ratio of railway expenditure to revenue from 79.83 per cent, in 1927-’28 to 77.80 per cent in 1928-’29. This figure by itself, as the House will realize, is by no means conclusive. After all, if yon have a normal expansion of traffic, not every item of expenditure increases. The overhead charges, for instance, the salary of the general manager, remain the same, and therefore it would be perfectly possible without any change in rates or increased efficiency that this mathematical figure would show progressive improvement. If the Minister wants to prove to the House this desirable state of affairs in regard to increasing efficiency, then he should have supported his statement by supplying some figures showing (1) increased efficiency in the handling of the despatch of goods, or (2) in the loading of cars, or (3) in the better use of cars, or (4) in the increased output per hour of working day. But none of these figures were supplied and therefore I accept the Minister’s statement with some little reluctance. I hate to criticize the railways because they always show me the greatest kindness. They have always given me a compartment to myself, and so on, and my experience when I criticized another ministerial department was rather unfortunate in that my remarks were taken personally. I hope the Minister of Railways will accept my criticism in the spirit in which it is meant, namely, that I desire to be really helpful to him. Now I have made a calculation based on the figures supplied by the Minister himself which leads me to believe that instead of there being increased efficiency there is a substantial decrease. The Minister said—

He made a similar statement in his speech on the 15th March last—

Now the 1928-’29 figure of train and engine mileage is not available, but I arrive at the figure by a very simple calculation. The increase on 1929-’30 is estimated at 3½ per cent, or 2,000,000 train and engine miles. Well, if 3½ per cent, is 2,000,000 then 100 per cent, must have been 57,000,000 as the train and engine mileage for 1928-’29. If we add to this the 2,000,000 million increase, then we arrive at an estimated figure of 59,000,000 for the year 1929-’30, and as the Minister has stated that these 2,000,000 extra miles are mainly responsible for the increase in running and traffic expenses my attention was naturally drawn to examine these two items. The 1927-’28 figure of train and engine mileage given in the report of the general manager of railways showed this figure at 60,850,649 miles. It is surprising in view of the claim of increased efficiency that in 1927-’28 with 60,850,649 miles running expenses were £5,133,064 and traffic expenses were £4,398,548, or in all £9,531,612. Now in 1929-’30 with 59,000,000 train and engine miles (it must be remembered that the Minister attributed to these two items the main increase in expenditure.) running expenses will be £5,371,989 and traffic expenses will be £4,533,106; total, £9,905,095: as against in 1927-’28, £9,531,612, an increase of £373,483, with a simultaneous reduction of about 13/4 million train and engine miles. This does not look like efficiency, but inefficiency, and I conclude, therefore, that even with 1927-’28 efficiency there is every chance of reducing the expenditure on our railways considerably and thereby meeting not only the request for reduced coal rates but even give other reductions in rates. The Minister may tell me that my figures to prove inefficiency are not scientific, as they just take one item on which to base my conclusion. But that is the item the Minister drew our special attention to, and to which he attributed the increased figures in this year’s estimates. Anyhow, my figures are just as conclusive to prove inefficiency as the Minister’s single figure of ratio of expenditure to revenue proves efficiency. I submit, therefore, that if the Railway Administration is willing to help the mining industry they are easily able to do so. I appeal most earnestly to the Government, in the interests of the mining industry and the country generally, to assist the industry so as to bring low grade ore within the payable zone and prolong the life of the industry thereby for very many years. I now pass on to diamonds. If the Minister had dealt with diamond mining and the diamond trade generally, he could have referred to many pleasing developments, for instance, the large amount of revenue the Government had obtained from the sale of some of their Namaqualand diamonds for the benefit of the loan funds. He could have dealt with the extension of diamond cutting in the Union, also fostered by the sale of these diamonds. On the other hand he would have had to point out that even in this trade certain unsatisfactory features have appeared lately which find their expression in a considerable drop in the price of diamonds on the alluvial diggings and in the reduced sales of the big producers. It is due to these reduced sales that the diamond taxation in south west yields so little money, and the Minister had to make provision to loan a considerable sum to the mandated territory to meet their requirements. It is also these small sales of the producers which prevent the prosperity of places like Kimberley and other centres which depend on diamond mining chiefly. In short, there is at the present moment a considerable falling off in the demand for diamonds and the diamond trade requires the most careful handling to prevent the present lull from assuming serious dimensions. I want to be most careful not to say anything which might aggravate the present position because it would be the greatest disservice to the trade to discuss details across the floor of the House. There can be no doubt that there is great nervousness in the trade at the present moment, and that there are some problems which require tackling before complete prosperity can be restored or even to prevent a temporary crisis. For that reason I would appeal to the Government to call at an early date a fresh inter-producers’ conference under the aegis of the Ministers of Mines and Finance, which could discuss the trade fully, and I am quite sure put the trade on a sound basis, thus restoring confidence and prosperity. The calling of such a conference would dispel the feeling which has been created that there is not alone no co-operation but that there is antagonism between the Government and the producing companies. Such a conference is also essential in the interests of the diamond cutting industry if that industry is to be put on a sound and permanent basis. When speaking on the Appropriation Part Bill during the last session of the last Parliament, I pointed out that a diamond cutting industry on a large scale could not be established under the sole benefit of the 10 per cent, export tax. I pointed out that the cost of cutting a diamond was not dependent upon the value of the particular stone, but on the size and quality of the diamond to be cut. I further pointed out that a large and permanent cutting industry could not be established on Government diamonds only, and that the industry would have to be directed in such a manner that the average quality of South African diamonds could he cut here. The Government must by now have learnt that the 10 per cent, ad valorem advantage which diamond cutters in the Union possess through brilliants not being liable to export tax only results in certain large sizes of good quality diamonds being cut in the Union. The Namaqualand diamonds are of particularly large size compared with other productions in the Union, and of extraordinary good quality. For all that, I do not think that more than 25 to 30 per cent, of these diamonds are of a size or quality to be profitably cut in South Africa under the present system. If that percentage is correct, the percentage of goods out of all other productions in the Union which falls in the same category as the Namaqualand diamonds now sold for cutting is so small as to be quite insufficient for a large scale industry in the Union. An inter-producers’ conference could discuss this question of diamond cutting and perhaps devise better means to make diamonds available for cutting within the Union. Incidentally it would also dispel the idea that the producing companies or the syndicate are opposed to diamond cutting within the Union. As a matter of fact, I may say that the syndicate has already taken steps to meet the altered circumstances, and all South African diamonds, wherever they may be produced, are sent to Kimberley and sorted by a specially trained staff in a similar manner as the diamonds are sorted in London for sale to cutting establishments in Amsterdam or Antwerp. Our action, which has necessitated the building of very large offices and an increase in the staff, has already been of some benefit to Kimberley, but a great deal more could be done by concentrating the diamond trade not only historically but actually in Kimberley, but this can only be done with the assistance of the Government. Dealing with diamonds naturally reminds one of Namaqualand and the problems which have to be faced there. There is no question that there has been a great deal of hardship through drought and other causes in Namaqualand, and it is quite understandable that the Government should have been anxious to find work on the diamond diggings for the unemployed in Namaqualand so as to relieve distress. There is now, however, an opportunity to find much more suitable and more permanent work for Namaqualanders if the Government would be sufficiently sympathetic to assist the American syndicate which holds an option over the Cape Copper Company’s property, and which has already spent a considerable sum, something like £200,000. I understand, in exploration, which work has shown that there is sufficient ore developed as to warrant the equipment of the property. The ore, however, is of such a low grade as to require the sympathetic consideration of the Government by charging a special rate for coal which would have to be consigned from Durban to Port Nolloth for the purpose of the enterprise. The benefits to the Union and to Namaqualand if this property could be re-opened would be very considerable, as it would mean an expenditure in the Union of some £25,000 per month, some £10,000 of which would be for wages and salaries in Namaqualand. I would appeal to the hon. member for Namaqualand for his support in this matter. Namaqualand again naturally reminds one of the use to which the Government means to put the money which comes to its loan funds from the sale of their diamonds. We have been told that a considerable amount is to be made available for irrigation purposes. Now the object of irrigation is to make land suitable for closer settlement. One third of the Union, however, with very excellent soil and good rainfall, is at the present moment not available for settlement because of endemic malaria. The recent outbreak has shown us how serious this can really be. I would suggest, therefore, to the Minister that he can do a very great deal to make more land available for settlement if some money were set aside out of the Namaqualand funds for dealing with the malaria question. Owing to the extensive areas involved, the solution of the malaria evil in South Africa is by no means as easy a matter as it looks. The “taming” of the malaria-infected country can be undertaken, but it must be done systematically and sensibly. The only practical method of attack is by demonstrations in selected areas, carried out by experts, designed to prove that malaria prevention can be carried out by an intelligent settler without extravagant expenditure. £5,000 a year spent in that way would be more profitably spent than ten times that amount spent on quinine. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he makes available for the Health Department a substantial sum for dealing with the malaria question. It may well be that it is a cheaper and more efficient way of making suitable land available than some of the irrigation schemes that may be under consideration. Moreover, by making the results of his investigations available to adjoining territories he will be rendering a great South African service. I further wish to appeal to the Minister to render some of his surplus funds available for purchase of radium so that suffering may be relieved in the hospitals. I have tried to show in my remarks that the position of the mining industry, both gold and diamonds, requires the earnest consideration of the Government, and the Minister himself has drawn attention to the difficulties which face farming. All the problems can be tackled, but if we continue as at present we shall drift into bad times. It would sound ungracious to say, “because of a Nationalist Government,” but I can certainly say without offence “in spite of” a Nationalist Government. In view of this, I can understand the Minister’s reluctance permanently to reduce taxation now. On the other hand I do feel that it would have been much better if the Minister had allocated a certain portion of the £800,000 of the income tax relief to the definite reduction of the customs duties on such goods as cannot be produced in the country and on such commodities which are of general consumption. In that way he would have helped all classes of the community and reduced the cost of living, and he would thereby have assisted trade generally.

It was with a feeling of gratitude that I listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance and his announcement of the magnificent surplus. I rejoice for two reasons, firstly on his own account and secondly on account of the country. I can imagine when he looks at the machinery of government today, that he laughs at the thought that the oil is there to make the wheels run. The oil is the money which he has produced. But although he is so pleased and I am full of gratitude, the idea also arises on the attainment of that position with so many millions of pounds from the State diggings in Namaqualand. I understand that the Minister said in March that from June to December last year. Namaqualand had produced £6,500,000 in diamonds and that the expenditure connected therewith was £110,000. Therefore £110,000 was spent in wages, wood, cement, etc., and the State got £6,500,000. If they worked on that basis, then possibly up to June last another £6,500,000 was got, so that the total yield is already £13,000,000. I do not know if this is so, but I know that the happiness is due to the millions found in Namaqualand. Just however, because of that, I want to ask the Government to be magnanimous to Namaqualand. I would like to draw attention to the position there and to try to show how an improvement can be effected. There has been a continuous drought for five years and hon. members can realize what that means in Namaqualand. It means that if the banks and creditors were to-day to call up debts, then 98 per cent, of the land in Namaqualand would come under the auctioneer’s hammer. Ninety-eight per cent, of Namaqualand is insolvent. It is humiliating to have to acknowledge it, but I think it is a good thing for the Government, as the father of the country, to know it, so that they can stretch out a kind and magnanimous hand over Namaqualand. I want to praise the Government for trying to save what still was to be saved. I feel thankful to them for establishing relief works. The people are busy there making the road from Van Rhynsdorp to Namaqualand, and the Government can rest assured that the people are grateful because if they had not been employed on relief works they would have starved from hunger. It is sad to see people who a few years ago were farm owners, working on the roads to-day, men of sixty to seventy years, formerly independent farmers, now working on the roads like convicts. The Government gave the money for relief works, and I want to ask them to continue to give the money but to give it in a better way, so that reproductive works may be established. Hitherto £75,000 has been spent on relief works in connection with road construction, and do you know how many miles of road have been constructed? Not more than 32. That means that every roadmaker has done eighteen inches a day. I repeat my question whether the money cannot be used on more reproductive works. The road will be blown away to-morrow, or washed away the day after, and as for the people, it exercises a bad influence on them: They become “navvies,” and their self-respect disappears. They sit and watch every day for the setting of the sun so that work may stop. The work keeps body and soul together but it offers no prospects, and without prospects a man leses his self-respect. What can a man do with 7s. 6d. if he has a wife and children? The result is that when pay-day comes we hear “Jan, no balance,” “Piet, no balance.” i.e., they have already received advances of all they are entitled to. This is humiliating and takes away self-respect. The Minister will ask what work must be done and I mention irrigation in the first place. I do not want to speak generally but to point out one absurdity. Namaqualand is the poorest, the most despised, the most neglected district and at the same time the richest in the Union, because the wealth of Namaqualand is fabulous. That wealth not only consists of diamonds but also of copper, as well as the rare beryl, tungsten, etc. On the one hand incredible riches, on the other terrible poverty. I do not want the Government to take away the work, but it should be different work. In spite of its poverty Namaqualand has two perennial streams. On the one side of the constituency there is the Oliphant’s River and on the other the Orange River. Especially between Sendeling’s Drift and Orange River mouth it will be possible to dam up the river. There it is always running and the land along the river can become more fruitful than that along the Nile. As we know, the water is sucked in at the mouth of the river, which then becomes wider and the water therefore backs up. The water can easily be taken out at little expense; 6.000 morgen of the best ground could be put under water, and if the men are used to do the work, they will be able to retain their self-respect. A man will then know that he is doing reproductive work and if he is given the prospect of a small piece of ground after work is finished, he will be encouraged. He will then have the prospect of once again sitting under his own fig tree and vine. He will then no longer look for the setting of the sun but want to finish work as quickly as possible, so that he will be able to go and fetch his wife and children to live on the farm. But this extravagant road construction destroys that self-respect. We must assist the people to work for their own piece of ground. If we do so, in a few years there will be no more poor people in Namaqualand. The damming of the Oliphant’s River at Bulhoek cost £600,000. A thousand people are living there to-day but the scheme does not pay. There was at that time a mania for buying ground, and the people paid as much as £100 a morgen because they knew the water was coming. It appeared however that the ground there was very porous, and the water disappeared. Almost half of the water is lost in this way and the water sinks into the ground. The salt water made the ground brackish and ruined it. The scheme that I suggest will be a blessing to Namaqualand. If the canals are made in concrete, they will carry almost half as much water again and you prevent percolation into the soil. Now I beseech the Government to take the people off the road and to put them on to constructing a furrow, so that they may do work from which they can make a living and which will tend towards their own interests. Building a canal will not be enough, because the dam at Bulhoek is not itself high enough. If it is raised by fifteen feet the people will get six and a half times more water, and then according to Mr. Reenen van Reenen four hundred more poor families would be able to settle along the Oliphant’s River. Think what that may mean, and the dam Will only cost £575,000, the same sum as that already spent on roads. It will not be like road building, which is blown away by the wind. We say that money must be provided for spending on reproductive works, which will endure to future generations. Another kind of reproductive work on which the Government can spend money is on the railways. When I speak of railways, I hope the Minister of Railways and Harbours will give me a friendly look. I ask that the people who are working on the roads be employed in making the railway which the Government kindly granted in 1924 and to extend it just 50 miles to the nearest village in Namaqualand, Garies. If that line is built there, it will be within eighty miles of part of the copper fields and close to the grain area of the Kamiesberg and the Hottentot’s Reserve. The extension of the railway will be a reproductive expenditure, and in addition the work will raise the self-respect of our people. Only recently a Namaqualander said to me: “You are better dressed than I, but you travel in my train because I helped to build the line.” Now I come to a delicate point, a third reproductive work. I ask the Government to give our people a chance in the wealth which nature has put into their country in the form of diamonds. I criticize no one and stand as a poor man before you, asking for work. The group of people whom the Government have employed in the State diggings at Alexander Bay earn 7s. 6d. a day cash, but when a man enters his condition is as that of a man in gaol. And when I speak of gaol I speak as an authority, and I know there are hon. members opposite—even in the Cabinet—who are experts on gaols. When a man is in gaol, even when accused of murder, then he at least has the right once a month to a visit from his wife, children and relations, but when a man is occupied in the State diggings he can never see one of his dear ones, or receive them. And that—for 7s. 6d. a day with the constant chance of being dismissed or being searched—as has happened to innocent people. Here I frankly mention names, namely, two grandchildren of the old father of Namaqualand, the late Mr. Peter van Rhyn. They were suspected and searched, and although nothing was found on them they were dismissed. That feeling of producing convicts at a cost of 7s. 6d. a day, is worse than gaol. If you say it is done for safety’s sake, then I ask why the people are not paid £1 a day? Which of us would like to go to gaol for that?

Do they only get 7s. 6d. a day?

Seven shillings and sixpence a day in cash and their food, but I want to tell the Minister that the people prefer to make their own food.

Do they not get a bonus?

Yes, if they agree to remain six months in those terrible conditions, but I think there are few who last for six months there. Another question I want to ask is: Why do you not give the poor Namaqualanders a chance of prospecting their ground? Prospecting is now permitted, but where is it taking place? You may not prospect along the coast and on places in its immediate neighbourhood, and I have a letter here from the Minister of Mines and Industries which says so. Now the only ground containing diamonds is along the coast. What does it mean, therefore, to allow a man to prospect 18, 80 or 100 miles from the coast? In the eyes of the world it looks nice and liberal, and we are asked why we complain, seeing that prospecting can be done in Namaqualand. Yes, but where? Everybody knows there are no diamonds in the area where prospecting is allowed. The Government may just as well be praised for allowing prospecting at the upper end of Adderley Street. I want to point out that it is not a policy which will pay, because four-and-a-half miles from Alexander Bay, Grootberg, 19,000 morgen in extent, is situated. The owners, de Villiers and Scholtz, are prohibited from prospecting it, and subject to correction. I say that they may not even dig a hole to plant a tree, because it would be said they are prospecting. The excuse is that the ground is near the State diggings. But why should an owner be deprived of the right of prospecting on his own ground? Moreover what is the use?—because as I see in the “Cape Times” there is an advertisement to sell the ground in 200 lots. Seeing that the ground lies on the Olifant’s River, yon will not be able to stop people from planting trees there after they have water on the ground. And if that is done I really do not know what to say. There is great dissatisfaction in Namaqualand, notwithstanding the fact that by nature the people are order loving. When in February 3,000 people were collected at Port Nolloth in the hope that their grievances would be attended to, it was the influence of the Namaqualanders which prevented the Transvaalers from Lichtenberg from making disturbances. The order-loving Namaqualanders said “Rather suffer loss, and this although every third day We have to see the sad sight of the aeroplanes carrying away our treasures.” The people wanted to ventilate their grievances, and 3,000 came together from far distances, but there were 500 police with bayonets, and those people do not think that bayonets are made for roasting meat, but for sticking into people’s hearts. Despite that the Namaqualanders did not move a finger to cause disorder or bloodshed. Cannot the Government come to their aid to-day and say “You are poor people of our country, and at least you have the right to live like white people, because this wealth was discovered in your area.” As one of them said: “I have been walking all my life next to a donkey cart, but if I find a small stone I too can ride in a Ford car and stink of lavender.” I understand that the great excuse is that the diamond market will drop. Right, I agree, but why cannot 800 instead of 60 or 70 people be employed on the State diggings? Or else give the people Boegoeberg. Small diamonds of a half or three-quarter carat are found there, and then you will not spoil the market. If the Government can always proclaim ground in Lichtenburg because the inferior quality of the diamonds will not influence the market, why cannot the Namaqualanders take out the inferior diamonds of Boegoeberg? The Government can say that they ought to be satisfied with the crumbs which fall from the laden table, and can also say: “Here is a claim and this Namaqualanders only may work.” It will be asked, what about the market? Well, let the Government fence the ground and put its own buyers in it. Then it can buy all the diamonds and keep them, even if they cost up to £800,000,000. The diamonds need not be put on the market, and so the Government will control the market. If it is willing to do so, it will find that it is assisting those people without damaging the market. Further, I want to point to a raw wound which is in the people’s hearts to-day, and I hope I am speaking to men who are sympathetic to their own people and indeed I am convinced that they are. To-day arrests, imprisonment and stealing are going on in Namaqualand. Let me admit frankly that theft is going on in all possible ways. The cleverness of the farm boys in stealing astonished me. But you cannot imagine what the people feel about this stealing and this arresting. Let me give you an instance. At the Orange River mouth there lives one of the pioneers of Namaqualand, Giel Louw, who had two sons Jan and Maans. They were two of the bravest boys you can imagine, and when the river was full and miles wide they went without fear to the stump of a willow-tree, and with a whip in the hand swam to the islands, a distance of two to three miles off, and then drifted down with 60 to 80 horses or cattle. As the old President said: “A desert has braced them to new strength.” When the Louw boys saw the aeroplane passing with the wealth of Namaqualand they said: “This is God’s thing, and why should We not have a share in it as well.” They stole a few small diamonds, and they have been put in gaol. Jan, a son of the great flats, who lies here in Cape Town between narrow gaol walls, lost his reason. Subsequently he recovered it, but lost it again, and to-day if you go to this brave boy’s house he walks about like a wild buck. His brother Maans also lay miserably in a gaol. He Suffered hunger and he found a convict’s grave. These things happened because the sons of a worthy patriot, a pioneer with a splendid record in the second war of independence, who would be envied by the Greek heroes, did not share in the riches of their own country. The Government is prosperous, and I am proud of and I welcome the budget speech. But if one of your fingers is hurt, your whole body feels it. The Namaqualanders are a part of your people. They are backward, impoverished, trodden down, and you must feel it. What is the use of having a fine team of oxen when one ox is sick? And what is the use of driving a magnificent Cadallic motor car of which the engine and three tyres ate in order and one tyre is flat? Namaqualand is the sick ox and the flat tyre of the Union. I appeal on behalf of the country of which I am a son, and for which I have suffered. I am convinced in my soul, that I have talked with men who are true Nationalists, with men who make their country’s sorrow their own, their country’s joy their own happiness.

I have, for a long time, taken much interest in diamond cutting in this country, and therefore I listened with the greatest interest to the lion, member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). He made certain statements here which the whole country will undoubtedly read with interest, and I should like just to criticize them a little. It is undoubtedly very pleasing to learn from the hon. member that he is sympathetic towards the diamond cutting. I do not know whether he always was so. I have also followed with the greatest interest the remarks of the hon. member With regard to the diamond trading, but I should like to know from him how it is that exactly the increased number of diamonds which are cut in our country have at present strangely dropped in price in America. This is a matter which almost baffles me as a layman, that from time to time our Government, by means of protecting the diamond cutting in our country, has given the Chance of extending their wing, the price of diamonds which are cut here has dropped so much in America. What the reason is I do not know, but perhaps the hon. member for Kimberley who controls most of the diamonds in the world, can give some information in the matter. My information is that diamonds which are cut by us here—the majority being Namaqualand diamonds—are at present worth 30 per cent. less when they arrive in America. I do not know what is behind it, but I was glad to learn that the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) at least feels sympathetic towards the diamond cutting establishments in our country. The hon. member further said that he thought that the 10 per cent, ad valorem which the cutting shops at present enjoy was not enough. I think that the hon. gentleman is perfectly right. It is not enough. I will briefly enquire why I think so. We, in South Africa, to make a start with cutting, had to import people who do not know the country, and who had to get more money than otherwise would have been the case, because they had to be imported and attracted. This means that our labour here is dearer than in Europe. For this reason alone the cutting shops ought to get more than 10 per cent, But there are other reasons. We know that in other parts of the world there is at present a big agitation against the South African cutting establishments which have been established. It is said that the cutters should not go to South Africa, or if they do go they must not teach our children. That is the most important point in connection with the cutting shops. Our power may, in future lie in them, but at present they make our weakness. If the International Cutters Union succeed in preventing our children from being trained, or if our children learn the art less efficiently than should be the case, so that our boys become bad cutters, then our cutting establishments in South Africa will not be a success. That the hon. member for Kimberley and the whole country, will undoubtedly deplore. Therefore I agree with the hon. member that the 10 per cent, ad valorem is not sufficient.

That I never said.

Then I misunderstood the hon. member. I know that the hon. member did speak of 25 per cent, to 20 per cent, which can be cut down.

The 10 per cent, is not the only protection.

I know. There is another 12 per cent, in purchasing, but even that is not sufficient. The hon. member for Kimberley said that only a part of the diamonds was cut here. That is true; small diamonds of half a carat or less—so I understand—are cut in Antwerp. In understand that in many cases it is done on farms where the farmers cut the diamonds, and they can, of course, do it much cheaper than we here. The position will only be sound when we can cut all sorts of diamonds here. In understand that every year about £13,000,000 worth of diamonds go to be cut, and that after they are cut they are worth about £22,000,000 to the trade. We therefore see of what great importance the cutting shops will be in future. I am sorry that the hon. member did not say that the protection was inadequate, but undoubtedly he meant it because otherwise he surely could not say that he had the interests of diamond cutting at heart. The hon. member will agree with me that the future of diamond cutting can only be safe when we organize the cutting shops in such a way that all sorts of diamonds can be cut here. I just want to touch one more point, and that is the proposed conference of producers. It may be a good thing, but in any case it is quite inadequate. What does it mean? It means a conference of the hon. member himself, a representative of the Government and one from the alluvial diggings.

The syndicate is not a producer.

Let me express myself differently, and talk about de Beers. It is, however, precisely the same, only a difference in name. Where, then, are the diamond cutters? Such a conference, will mean nothing except postponement of execution. I would suggest that a council or board be created which will act in South Africa not only for the producers, but also for the cutters and workmen. I have visited the cutting shops in the various centres of the country, and I can assure the Minister that if that is not done then the cutting industry here, which now seems so promising, will die a natural death. We ought to have some body which will not only protect the interests of the producers, but also those of the cutters and of the overseers. There must be co-operation, not only in South Africa, but also in or with Europe, so that the opposition which exists at present may disappear. This may occur if we arrange for the organization in South Africa also controlling, to some extent, the distribution of diamonds, so that Europe gets its share of our diamonds, and will therefore not be dissatisfied. Then we shall get the co-operation of the diamond kings, and the workers throughout the whole world. It is, anyhow, a fact that the diamond industry is restricted. If we do so the great difficulty with which the Minister of Justice has to struggle, namely the illicit diamond trade, will disappear, because the Government will then be able, or the board will be able to exercise control. It is said that the pupils that we produce here will not know their job well. I saw 96 pupils in the factory at Kimberley, where the Government has a contract. I hope that they will all turn out first class cutters, and I also trust it will be so. But we have not the least control over it. In a factory at Cape Town, which I am much interested in, there are now 12 pupils. I know that there is a good future for first class men, but the whole training is on a loose footing. If I rightly understand the hon. member for Kimberley, he wants to assist the Government, and is having the sorting of diamonds done by his experts. I am glad that the hon. member wants to assist the Government, and is going to establish a fine sorting establishment—such as exists in London, but not in South Africa. At the same time, however, I want to ask the hon. member for Kimberley why the existing cutting shops cannot be better treated by his mines. We already have 14 or 15 cutting shops in the country, but it is impossible on account of the price, to buy the diamonds from De Beers. I am glad to hear that the hon. member for Kimberley said that he had now adopted technical methods to put that matter on a better footing, and I hope he will be able to so fix the price of diamonds that the local cutting shop can buy them. At the present prices it would not pay them. I have said these few words because I am aware of the importance of the development of our cutting industries. Then the hon. members for Kimberley and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) also pleaded for the coal industry. It is all good and well, but the hon. members both completely forgot that the Government is already doing more for the coal industry than for any other. There is a special bill before the House which asks for the creation of a research institute to push the development of the coal industry. The £30,000 for that purpose will not be paid by the owners of the coal mines, but by the State. Is that not assistance? What are they complaining of, then? Here, however, I merely want to express the hope that if the research leads to favourable results the Government will not put all the rights into the hands of a few capitalists. Various patents will have to be bought which are of the greatest importance to South Africa. The wealth of the poor coal industry will immediately mount by tens and hundreds of milions, when the development process has come to full perfection. I hope the Government will be alive and see that those patents do not get into the hands of a few capitalists but that care will be taken that the Government shall continue to exercise a certain measure of control. In conclusion, I want to say that if one has heard the hon. member for Yeoville for the first time speaking about the gorgeous ambassadors, he would have suspected the hon. member of disloyalty. I think he will immediately see my point. He said we must not have ambassadors abroad, but what does that amount to in the end? My argument is that the appointment of ambassadors means nothing else than the raising of our position in the world and strengthening it. That is where the unconscious disloyalty of the hon. member comes in. If South Africa is strengthened then the British Commonwealth is also strengthened, because if a member is strengthened the body also is strengthened. If, however, the hon. member for Yeoville wants one member to be kept weak, then he has been guilty of a certain amount of unconscious disloyalty to the Empire. I do not doubt that the hon. member did not intend that, and that he was arguing against himself.

After the eloquent and moving appeal by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) it seems almost sacrilege to come back to the ordinary finances of the country, but of course it has to be done. Before referring to the figures in the speech of the Minister, I would like to make a brief reference to some of the things said by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé). The hon. member seemed to think he had scored a great point against this side of the House by quoting speeches that were made by some eminent members which stated in effect that the finances of the country were in a sound position. He quoted with great satisfaction Mr. Jagger, Sir Drummond Chaplin and the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and he actually quoted me also. No one on this side of the House has denied for a moment that the finances are in a sound position. The Minister of Finance has put before us a balance sheet which shows the excess of assets over liabilities. He has shown that after two years trading, if it may be so called, he has come out with profits of £3,000 000, and that there Is plenty of money in hand for any development that is required. That does not make at all inconsistent the criticism from this side of the House as to how that has been effected. That is what has been done from this side. The hon. member for Pietersburg also seemed to think it was a great point—and I notice that during the elections the Prime Minister also took up the same line—to say that from this side we do not all speak with one voice on matters that come before the House.

Very true.

We are not a flock of sheep nor are we gramophones. One of the charms of Parliament and one of its great uses is that we may be able to see and realize the other man’s point of view. If you take a country as this, the tremendous extent of it, and you range from the semi-tropical sugar fields of Natal through the greatest gold mines in the world, and the greatest diamond mines in the world, through the lonely Karroo sheep farms, through the big industrial centres, through the I.D.B. factories of Namaqualand and through the sandy wastes of Gordonia, it would be extraordinary if we did all hold the same opinions. The value of Parliament is that every man is free to express his own opinion and to see things from the other man’s point of view and out of it all to evolve policies suitable to the country. If we get to the position in which Parliament is merely a registering machine for votes with all on that side of the House speaking with one voice, and all on this side speaking with one voice, then Parliament will become impotent. Then will be the time when it will disappear and a dictator will be appointed, say someone of the mentality of the Minister of Defence, and after that I think we will be shot. I do not think it will come to that so that the Minister need not look so alarmed. The Minister of Finance puts before us his estimates of revenue and he shows us how he expects to get this money, £21,000,000 to be taken by taxation, that taxation being chiefly £9,000,000 from customs, £2.000,000 from excise, a million pounds odd from mining, six and a half millions from income tax, £1,000,000 from the unfortunate natives. Then there is £4,500,000 from the postal department, £2.000,000 from the State, chiefly mining and State mining, and another £2,000,000 miscellaneous including interest. I do not know whether the Minister expects us to take these figures very seriously: I do not think he takes them very seriously himself, judging by these figures we have, because it will be remembered that one-and-a-half or two years ago he put forward his estimates and he received more than a million than he had expected. He told us exactly how we were going to spend that million surplus, and that next year he would come out square, but at the end of it he had another £1,750 000, and, altogether, £3,000,000 in hand. From what we know of the Minister’s ability, I do not think he can make mistakes to that extent; and it must be part of a plan to come at the end of the year with a big surplus, and to scatter largesse. It must be done of set purpose. Either he is the worst judge in this House of what his revenue and taxes will bring in, or he deliberately wants to scatter largesse at the end of the year—a very unsound financial position and a very dangerous one. The Minister is in danger of becoming a popular person, and there is no more dangerous position. Beware when all men speak well of you. The position as disclosed by the Minister speaks of the prosperity of the country generally, and, of course, there must be prosperity somewhere, where this comes from. But is there this general prosperity which these figures portray? I should think certainly not. We have the speech from the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp). There was no particular prosperity there. We had farmers dealing with their woes, and we had the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who in appearance is perfectly prosperous, but he has told us of the position in the world of mining, and more than all that we have the actual estimates the Minister has put forward. He is asking for £100,000 for the relief of distress, and when we turn to the loan votes, £170,000 there, for the relief of distress. It looks as if everything is not what it seems on the surface of things, but there the Minister stands, the rich young man of great possessions, with £3,000,000 in his pocket to dispense. I have always found that when the Minister has money in hand he has made prudent use of it, and I am not objecting to any use which he is making of this surplus. He might have gone further, and there is one class of persons he has overlooked in his distribution of largesse—the really poor man. Neither in his re-arrangement of customs and income tax has he looked to the interests of the really poor in this country. It seems to me rather a curious thing; I understand in the new recruits, the new backing the Minister has on his side, there are no fewer than eight ministers of religion, commonly called persons. On this side we number among our recruits some hard-up farmers, some hard-hearted lawyers and some hard-hit business men, but we have not a single man of religion, and when it comes to real consideration for the poor man, it comes from this side, which, as I said, is a coincidence. The Minister, in a speech which he made at the end of the last Parliament, made the claim that he had transferred the burden of taxation from the poor man to the rich. I challenged his statement at the time, and I do so again in taking these proposals he has put before us now. In reducing his customs, he is going to put an extra tax on condensed milk, and on certain clothing. Is that helping the poor man and transferring the burden from the poor man to the rich? I am not now giving any opinion on this taxation; the time to do that is when we go into committee of ways and means. That they do not bear out the claim the Minister is making for himself, is what I am pointing out. The Minister is giving considerable reduction to the ordinary income tax payer, but he is not what I would call the really poor man. The former must have £500 a year before he pays income tax. The further concession which the Minister is making is not for the poor farmer; it is only for the farmer who pays income tax, and who has capital spent on certain improvements on his farm. That is giving nothing to the poor man. It is a disappointment to me that the Minister, when he has this surplus in hand, is not giving anything to the really poor man. That leads me to a question that really should be tackled. A great part of the art of government is to hold the scales equally between various interests, and that must be a most difficult thing to do. It appears to many of us that in holding the scales the Government has lost sight of the cost of living, and the effect it will have on the community. It is brought home to one when a convinced protestionist and agriculturist like the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) asks the Government to call a halt. The mines are temporarily the real basis of our prosperity, although in the long run it is agriculture. With regard to industries and the cost of living, I know that one of the best brains in this House is engaged in considering the question of encouragement of industries, and I suggest that a new committee should be appointed to go into the whole matter, and to see whether it is not possible to reduce the cost of living without, at the same time, doing any injury to the manufacturing industries of the country. There might be joined with that the question of railway rates. With regard to capital expenditure, one of the most re-assuring things that the Minister has told us is that this year he will be able to spend on development by capital expenditure £11,000,000, and will have to borrow only some £2,000,000 for the purpose of doing it. One hears a good deal of irresponsible talk about our public debt. According to our way of finance, the measure of our public debt is the measure of our development. There is no one who wants to arrest our development, but you cannot carry on our development without the increase of our public debt. It seems to me that so long as the scheme is well considered, and accompanied by a sound sinking fund scheme, we should not be unnecessarily alarmed about the increase of our public debt. When we look at the fact that out of our public debt no less a sum than £150,000,000 is locked up in railways, we ought to be reassured. That asset could be floated at any time. There would be no difficulty in floating a company to take over our railways, with the condition of having the monopoly of running the railways in a developing country of this sort. That is a debt that need not cause any anxiety, though I do not suggest that a company of this kind would take over the railway board. Not even the competition of road motors need cause anxiety. That, I think, is very much overrated. The motor service of the railway for short distances is, I think, a better way of serving the public, and I think it has come to stay. It is not the short distance traffic that pays the railway, but the long distance traffic. The further it goes the better it pays per ton per mile. No road motor service is going to interfere with that traffic. I do not think from a financial point of view, the Minister need worry his head about the short distance traffic. I do not think we should be afraid of development or of debt for development, and I have for years advocated development by way of a harbour for Algoa Bay. I want to turn to railways for a few minutes. I think that the experiment by which the general manager has given more authority to the assistant managers, has worked very satisfactorily. The change made by the Minister has been entirely warranted. I now wish to turn to the parish pump, to the Port Elizabeth harbour. Turning to parish pump affairs, I would like to speak now, because one has not always the opportunity of engaging the attention of the Minister of Railways. The position is such now that the Minister will be forced to have his attention called to affairs in Algoa Bay owing to an increase in traffic. The position is in Port Elizabeth that we do our discharging of goods by lighters. Some years ago, when Mr. Burton was Minister of Railways, he authorized the building of the south arm at Algoa Bay; that has been built there now and has alleviated the hardship of the port to a very great extent. The present Minister of Railways appointed three gentlemen who have no interest whatever in Algoa Bay to consider the trade necessities of the port. Among these gentlemen were Mr. van der Horst and Mr. J. Sturrock, the latter gentleman being now an hon. member of the House. When the report came forward, the Minister was not prepared to express an opinion; all he would say was the Government is not prepared to spend a large sum of money. We have not had any definite promise from him, but I do say that when the hon. J. W. Jagger was Minister of Railways, and we asked for these improvements in Algoa Bay, he watched the engineering and sounding tests. The inference to draw was that the work was to be gone on with. But up to the present the Minister of Railways and Harbours has made no statement on the matter. Work cannot be carried on longer easily under present conditions at Algoa Bay. 840,000 tons were dealt with at this port during the past year, and the coal trade has grown enormously. I do not say that there is a position of danger, but a large expenditure has to be faced there. The people of Algoa Bay are much alive to the difficulties there. I personally cannot speak of them as I am not an engineer. I can only say that apparatus for loading lighters there is needed very much. The Minister seems to recognize the position at Algoa Bay, that something has to be done, and we hope he will give us bigger facilities on shore. He has not told us whether he is going to merely patch up things, and we feel the Minister of Railways and Harbours should tell us what he is going to do. The only perfectly satisfactory way at this port is to go on at once with the big scheme.

I have listened very attentively to the speeches made, with most attention to that of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I regard him as one of the most worthy members, not only of the Opposition, but of the whole House. The hon. member wants the Government to reduce the expenditure. Now I ask the hon. member whether he was serious. I ask whether he remembers the time, five or six years ago, when there was a strike everywhere. Yet since 1924 everything has progressed. Many improvements have been brought about, and they cost money. The hon. member also commented upon the appointments in Namaqualand. I think that an appointment at £3,500 is very little when we compare it with the revenue from Namaqualand. I now come to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who said that it was constantly said on the platforms that the taxation would be reduced. May I assure the hon. member that we not only said so but that we have also given our attention to reducing taxation since 1924, and we asked the public to go into the matter. That was done and it was found that it was actually a fact. That is why the benches on this side are so full. I want to criticize the Nationalist party a little for not being more thankful at their victory. We bear very little about it. If there were to be by-elections now the membership will be still greater, but where they will sit I do not know. I think that we shall have to commandeer the front benches of the Opposition. The new members will then be able to sit here, and I shall be glad, because we are not very comfortable here. The hon. member sneered about our promises. Let me tell him that I would be sorry for a member of the South African party in the Cape Province if he were to preach here what has been said from the platform in the north by my South African party friends. They said there time and again, that Gen. Hertzog wanted to extend the native franchise to the north, and we had a lot of trouble about it. Did the hon. member for Caledon say the same here? The hon. member is looking for but cannot find a stone. He did not find one to throw. He appreciates, and so do other hon. members of the Opposition, that they are up against a stone wall and cannot attack the budget. I want, however, to bring the position of the tobacco farmer to the attention of the Government. We find that the Magaliesberg Tobacco Co-operative Society has 14,000,000 pounds of tobacco on hand. The consumption is 11,000,000 pounds, and according to estimates the yield this year will again be 11,000,000 pounds. The society has the chance of exporting 4,500,000 pounds at a loss of 2d. a pound, and I would suggest that the Government meet the society by bearing a portion of the loss, if it will not bear the whole loss. The society has a debt to-day of £220.000. Interest has to be paid on this, and I know I am talking on behalf of the tobacco planters in asking the Government for the assistance mentioned. I want further to point out that Rhodesia exports 8,000,000 pounds of tobacco into the Union, and I should like the Government to put a tax on tobacco coming from Rhodesia. Rhodesia is able to sell 2d. or 3d. below the fixed price in the Union. Most tobacco farmers here have only small pieces of ground, and cannot grow mealies on them. They have all been recommended tobacco, and have to battle with all the difficulties. Then I further wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Irrigation to boreholes which are made and are no benefit to the people. We find that young beginners have boreholes sunk. The amount they are indebted is, say, £200, but they get no benefit from the boreholes. In some cases they are reckoned at £5 a day, but the public appreciates the Government having reduced the price to £3. It is very difficult, however, with a debt of £200, to come out, and I want to ask if the Minister cannot write down 50 per cent, of the amount. This will help many of the young farmers. Then I want to draw the attention of the Government to the need for better roads. I should like to see that instead of £1,000,000 being given to the provinces, the Government will lend some millions to put the main roads of the country in such a position that they can be driven over. That will not only increase the traffic, but will contribute to greater prosperity in the country.

I had not intended to intervene in this debate so early, but as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has put forward his plea for harbour development for Port Elizabeth, I feel I must rise, as representing a perfectly neutral constituency, to put in a word on his behalf. I know that the Minister will counter our proposals for Port Elizabeth harbour, by saying that we are urging economy on the one hand and expenditure on the other; but I would point out that it is often necessary to spend money in order to economize, and this particularly applies to Port Elizabeth harbour. It is some time now since I had the pleasure of reading the report of the commission on the trade prospects of Port Elizabeth, but my recollection of it is that by spending a small sum comparatively, when compared with what the railways have already committed themselves to, we can very considerably increase the returns to be obtained from that harbour. I think the railways are at present expending something like £2,000,000 on the construction of the south arm. They will have no additional revenue whatever from this expenditure for the simple reason that it will not be possible to charge anything in the nature of dues. Before that can be done it will be necessary, to embark on the further scheme of enclosing the whole harbour by the extension of what is known as the north arm. Another aspect of the Port Elizabeth harbour question is that at present Port Elizabeth is very seriously handicapped by the narrow strip of land on which the railway operates. If the development scheme of Port Elizabeth harbour is gone ahead with, and more land is obtained through reclamation work, the economies thus effected will go a long way to pay the interest on the capital involved. I would also remind the Minister in this connection, that while he is sitting still and doing nothing, our competitors in the north are developing routes which, in due course, will compete with the routes of the South African railways. Port Elizabeth to-day is in the direct route for shipments to the copper fields of the north, and unless something is done to develop the harbour at Port Elizabeth we will find our more enterprising competitors in the north building harbours at such places as Lobito Bay, and developing railways in competition with ourselves. I would like to say that when the commissioners were appointed to investigate the conditions at Port Elizabeth, I think they were predisposed to be against any development of that port, and it is a significant fact that the weight of evidence placed before them was such that they were compelled to change their minds. I was one of them, and I think that when we went down there we had made up our minds that the Port Elizabeth people would have to put up a very good case indeed to get our support. The fact that they got our support shows that they put up a good case. I hope that the Minister will consider the claims of Port Elizabeth. We have many irrigation schemes in the hinterland of Port Elizabeth, and owing to the collapse of the ostrich-feather industry, fruit is now being largely grown under these irrigation schemes. Port Elizabeth will in future be a very important fruit exporting port, but it is quite impossible to export fruit if you have to load it into lighters and re-tranship it to the ship’s hold. A quay-side harbour is certainly required and justified at Port Elizabeth. There is only one other matter that I would like to deal with in regard to the railways. I notice that the Minister of Railways has recently issued instructions to the effect that the vessels of the harbour department and other craft belonging to the Administration that do not proceed outside the three miles shall fly the Union flag of South Africa. I entirely approve of the Minister giving such instructions, but I would point out to him that there is in existence a document known as the King’s regulations and Admiralty instructions, and that one of the articles in these “Regulations and Instructions” definitely lays it down that the flag which shall be flown by craft belonging to the Union of South Africa is the blue ensign with the badge or emblem of the Union in the flag. The flag we ought to fly is the blue ensign and the flag he is flying is being flown contrary to these instructions. The Minister, as a matter of courtesy, should approach the Admiralty and ask them to amend the instructions. One of the least pleasing features of the budget on this side of the House is the enormous surplus which the Minister shows. He has no less than a balance of £1,765,000 this year surplus revenue over expenditure. This added to accumulated balances gives him a sum of £3,065,000. This sum has been taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers unnecessarily. I want to point out that if you take £3,000,000 from the coffers of business and industry you are reducing the borrowing capacity of that industry from £40,000,000 or £50,000,000; you are hindering the industry of South Africa from borrowing capital which it needs very much indeed. The Minister might hear much less about the curse of unemployment in South Africa if this were not done. The Minister has appropriated this money on the whole on sound lines, but I would emphasize this to the Minister of Finance. Money easily found is money easily spent. The Minister stated that owing to the fact that he had this money and other windfalls, it was possible for the Government to indulge in expenditure which they would otherwise have hesitated about incurring. He says in effect that because I found this money easily, I am going to spend this money in directions which I would not otherwise do.”

Do you mean to say we are spending money unnecessarily? I should like you to give us particulars about it.

I will! I would just like to suggest to the Minister in this connection that instead of talking about productive and non-productive expenditure, he would be well advised to talk of interest and non-interest bearing money. I should be sorry if this House passed any estimate if it were not going to produce something. Some of this so-called productive expenditure produces nothing but deficits. It would be better, instead of talking about productive or unproductive expenditure, if the Minister would consider using the term interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing money. If any proof were needed of the fact that it is inadvisable to have surplus money, and that the result is that expenditure goes up, we find it in the interesting situation that since the Minister originally introduced his budget in March, he has had to meet increased annual expenditure by no less than £360.000. The Minister proposes to place these funds to loan account, an operation which I am sure will meet with the whole-hearted approval of the Labour party. What he is really doing is taking the funds of the few and investing them for the benefit of the many. Some time ago he asked the public to subscribe to a Union loan bearing approximately 4¾ per cent, interest, but he is now appropriating larger sums of money than the public subscribed on which he proposes to pay no interest at all. It would be fairer to allow the taxpayers to invest their money in Government loans, or not as they desire, and if they do the Minister should pay them a fail-rate of interest. I am not criticizing the Minister for the failure of his last loan, but I hope he will take heed of this failure and not rely on the Public Debt Commissioners helping him out in future.

Why not?

Because it is very unsound for them to take up too large a proportion of any loan. If a loan is not good enough for the public, or for financial corporations, I do not see why it should be good enough for the Public Debt Commissioners, who are the bankers for these people.

On the motion of Mr. Sturrock, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.

I tried yesterday to impress upon the Minister that in consistently underestimating his revenue we considered that he was following a course that was financially unsound. I trust I did so with the modesty becoming to a maiden speaker. It is, of course, quite true that the Minister is appropriating the surpluses which he is getting in this way to loan account, but that, after all, is only making the best of a bad job. The Minister is not only taking more than he need from the pockets of the taxpayers, but he is really helping himself to their capital which would otherwise be invested in the trade and industry of this country, and he is taking that capital without paying any interest on it whatever. We suggest it would be much better if the Minister would go into the open market and borrow such money as he may require from time to time in the ordinary way and pay a fair rate of interest upon it. If what he is doing is sound, why does he budget for a surplus of only £1,000,000 or £1,500,000? Why not budget for a surplus of say, £10,000,000, and provide for the whole of his capital expenditure at the expense of the taxpayer? I take it the Minister does not follow that course because he knows that whilst the treasury would prosper for a while it would spell disaster for the trade and industry of this country. I should now like to deal briefly with the question of the Mozambique Convention. In doing this, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the lion, member for Kimberley (Sir. E. Oppenheimer) and to say that I also recognize the difficulties that a Government must always have in arranging foreign treaties. I agree this treaty is better than it might have been, and while we in commerce would gladly have had more, we recognize we might very well have got a good deal less. There was however, one very serious omission from this treaty, and I would like the Minister to give it his sympathetic and careful consideration. In the old Mozambique treaty we had Article 17, Section (5), which provided for the compounding of all duties payable by natives returning to Mozambique territory by the payment of, I think, 7s. 6d. That was a very excellent scheme, because the native knew exactly what duty he had to pay when he went back. In the new convention, this clause, for some reason, has been left out, with the result that natives when they return, are now being called upon to pay very heavy duties indeed on all purchases they may have made in South Africa. That is having a very serious and unfortunate effect on the trade of the Rand. An enquiry was recently instituted by the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce into the actual falling-off of trade which can be attributed to this cause, and we found that between January and May of this year, as compared with the same period last year, there has been a falling off in some of the leading lines in native trade of anything between 30 per cent, and 50 per cent. The Minister will appreciate that is a very serious matter indeed, not only for the trader, but for the manufacturer, because many of these things are made in the Union. If anything can be done to again institute the compounding charge, the Minister will do a very great service to trade and industry, especially on the Witwatersrand. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word in regard to the matter of the disposal of these surplus funds, to which I have already referred. I understand the Minister intends to spend this money primarily on irrigation and on roads.

And on public buildings for Johannesburg.

That, unfortunately, is a very small item in the total. So far as irrigation is concerned, I should like to add my support to the plea already made from this side of the House, representative as it is of the farming industry of this country, that the Minister will seriously consider doing something to establish existing irrigation schemes on a sound footing before he embarks on any new works. There are many irrigation schemes in this country, particularly those established in the hinterland of Port Elizabeth that were founded upon the ostrich feather industry. They were financially justified at the time, but, unfortunately, during the period between their inception and their completion, the ostrich feather industry completely disappeared. Large numbers of farmers, who in the ordinary way would have been able to meet their liabilities under these schemes, were quite unable to meet them. They have had to take up fruit-farming and other agricultural pursuits to make up their losses, but you cannot change your farming activities in a day. For that reason many of these schemes to-day are financially bankrupt, and farmers, who settled under them, have no hope of getting out of their present financial difficulties unless the Government assists the position. I would like, therefore, to suggest that either the Minister appropriates some of this money towards writing down some of these schemes, or that they be subsidized in the future, so that farmers will not have to bear the whole burden. In regard to roads, I understand the Minister proposes to hand over £1,000,000 to the different provinces for expenditure on roads. I believe the money has to be spent on roads approved by the Government, but the Minister has given us no indication as to what class of roads it is proposed to approve. I see from the press that the provinces are already parcelling up this money amongst them, and it seems they are going to get contributions from this fund based not on their needs, but on their relative size and importance. I suggest it would be better for the Minister rather to go into the needs of the provinces and to distribute this money on that basis. I also think it is a matter of the first importance that the Minister should say from the start that any money spent by the central Government on roads is to be spent in accordance with some well-thought-out and co-ordinated plan. He will probably spend in the future more money on roads than he is appropriating now, and it is right that he should start on a proper plan. I think this money should be spent mainly on trunk roads, and I hope the Minister will pay this money on the pound for pound principle in such proportions as he thinks wise. This will ensure that the money spent will encourage the provinces to go in for expenditure on roads, and will not use Union funds in relief of their own obligations. The Minister may think I am being a little bit careful, but like one or two other hon. members on this side, I have the misfortune of having been born in Scotland, and the idea of allowing other people to spend one million of our money is a proposition which I view with some little concern. It is my considered opinion that the Minister is still budgeting this year for a very large surplus, and even if we allow for the falling off of imports, and there is no indication why we should allow for that, I can see him coming out with a surplus of not less than £800,000. He himself lectured the people of South Africa on living within their means, but I suggest, that moral lectures of this kind are not likely to impress the people very much when they see that the Minister himself is not living up to his own precepts. I noticed the other day that the great motor manufacturing concerns have decided to sell more motor cars in South Africa than they have ever done before, and you can take it from me as knowing something about it that if they say they are going to sell more cars they will have no difficulty at all in finding people to buy them. Motor cars are like babies; it is only those people who cannot afford them that are always getting them. The only way to bring home to the people the necessity of living within their means would be for South Africa to undergo a period of depression, and that is a thing nobody on this side certainly desires to bring about. I am afraid that if we are living beyond our means to-day we are all living like myself with the feeling that if we do have a debit balance that will be wiped out once the Minister starts to spend these vast accumulations of the taxpayers’ money.

As a representative of a mining constituency, I was very much interested in the remarks from the other side as to the alleged overcharging of the mines by the railways, particularly as regards rates on coal. I have a special interest in the workers on the mines, and on their behalf, and in the interests of the country generally, I am anxious that the mines should go ahead, and I quite agree it is very wrong indeed for the Government to press on the mines anything like the taxation which the other side says they have done. But my difficulty is we get nothing from the other side regarding the over-charges, but generalities and platitudes. We have not got anything in the way of a definite statement except one, and I find myself very much in the position in which the Minister finds himself when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) tell us that we are spending more than we are earning, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) admits that the country is in a very prosperous position, and then asks for the spending of a few millions on harbour improvements to benefit his constituency. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze), whom we all admit is an authority on mining based on the fact that he was our mining engineer for some years, saw the importance of giving us something tangible in the way of figures, and he has told us that, according to the estimate of a competent authority, the profits of the railways on coal supplied to the mines is no less than £510,000 a year. No wonder the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) should ask how any business man could reconcile that profit with the most elementary business principles. He answered the question himself by saying, “of course not,” and we wonder how the Government has been able to get away with it for so long, for, as a matter of fact, Mr. Burton brought the present coal rates in in 1920, and they were reconsidered by Mr. Jagger later on. Although Mr. Jagger is a keen business man, the coal rates were left undisturbed, and have remained so up to the present. When the statement of this supposed huge profit on carrying coal was announced it is no wonder the newspapers had splash headings to say that the rates are bearing hardly on industries. The hon. member for Kimberley, in his interesting speech yesterday, told us that he knew something about figures. I would ask him and those behind him to study the figures I will give. It is a great pity the hon. member for Roodepoort did not consult a real, instead of an imaginary, business man before he made his statement in the House, because if he had done so he would have found he had discovered an over-sized mare’s nest. The only fact in the whole statement is that the railways do carry coal for the mines. The hon. member for Springs, as the previous holder of the office, will know something about the value of the figures issued in the annual report of the Government mining engineer and also as a mining director the value of the statements made in the annual report of the Chamber of Mines. From these two reliable sources we find that the total amount of coal consumed by the mines in 1927 amounted to 1,554,333 tons. If we allow 6s. per ton for haulage, which I am told is a very liberal estimate, it works out that the total amount earned by the railways on this traffic was £464,000. That is not the point. The big power company has got its two biggest generating plants right, alongside where the coal is produced, so that they require no railway service. The only thing one can surmise with regard to the hon. member’s competent authority is that he added 10 per cent, for luck to the gross revenue and confused the whole lot with profit. During the last week, we have had a number of distinguished scientists here, all of whom are exceedingly smart men, but it seems to me that our Minister of Railways has nothing to learn from any of them, because, according to a competent authority vouched for by hon. gentlemen opposite, he has carried 1,500,000 tons of coal 100 miles and made a profit of £50,000 out of a revenue of £464,000. When hon. members opposite find a competent authority who really knows what he is talking about, and he proves that the mines are being overcharged, then I will do what I can to assist them, but hon. members, instead of being helpful, are doing a disservice to the mining industry by finding mare’s nests as they have done regarding coal rates. Probably a lot of the figures quoted so eloquently by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) yesterday, would, if examined, prove to be just as groundless as the figures I have referred to. When we consider the question of coal rates, we should remember that for every one-and-a-half million tons of coal carried by the railways for the mines, four-and-a-half million tons are carried for other industries and the general public, and if a concession is made reducing the price by 2s. per ton, it would mean that the mines would be given a rebate of £160,000 and the general public one of £480,000, so that £640,000 would be lost by the Railway Department. If that were done, it would be quite possible that an extra rate would have to be put on some other articles carried for the mines, so that the mines would not benefit very much after all. The public, particularly the public on the Rand, are not much interested in the question of the mines getting a reduction of coal rates, because the coal trade is a close preserve, and the probability is the companies would pocket the rebate. The Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association has such a complete control of the trade that it fixes minimum retail prices, and the number of suppliers is so limited, that nobody who is not in the ring can get coal to sell. This makes profiteering easy, as will be shown from the fact that the coal supply to the mines costs the mines 12s. 4d. a ton, and the very same coal in Johannesburg is sold to the householder for 22s. a ton cash, which leaves an inordinate profit on an essential of life. The hon. member for Kimberley argued that if the railway coal rate was reduced the trade would probably increase, but I would suggest to him that he should use his influence with his friends to get them to reduce the price of coal to the private consumers, which would certainly facilitate a bigger trade. In any case, I do not think that any company or body of companies which creates a monopoly in a necessary commodity like coal, and inflicts hardship on the general public, and especially the poorer section of it, has any right to come to this House and ask for any concession in rates whatever. With regard to another question, I am very pleased that the Government is setting up a commission to deal exhaustively with the miners’ phthisis question. We know very well that for years past the miners have had serious grievances, and that these grievances have proved very difficult to deal with owing to the complex questions involved. But we have not officially heard the personnel of the commission. We see in the press that there are going to be representatives of the employers and representatives of the workers, and a certain number of professional men who will really be the controlling influence. It is a very difficult thing indeed to have the scales held evenly when you have on one side very keen business men, who are doing their utmost to increase the profits of the industry, and you have on the other side sufferers from miners’ phthisis, who are entitled to much more sympathy than they get, but whose sufferings cannot be adequately compensated in pounds, shillings and pence. My own experience on the Reef, which extends over a long period, is that the average professional man has unconsciously a prejudice against the miner, and I consider that when the commissioners are told, as they will be told, that many miners who are fortunate to get good working places frequently earn as much a s £50 a month after they have been in the mines two or three years. When told this professional men generally recall their early days in business, and think that the miners are particularly well off. They do not bear in mind that the miner is as highly skilled in his occupation as they are in theirs, that he is in daily danger of being crushed to death, or blown to atoms, and that, at any rate, within seven or eight years, he will be the victim of a disease quite as insidious as cancer, the mere mention of which scares ordinary mortals. I am quite satisfied that the miners have a very good case to go before the commission if it is properly put up. We are going to have men on this commission who are without knowledge of mining conditions, and the presentation of the case on behalf of the men will be a very important factor in arriving at a sound judgment. The underground workers are mostly supporters of the Government; probably 70 per cent. of them support the Government. During the past five years they have been so confident of obtaining the support of the Government in any disputes which might arise that they have neglected their union, and now, when this important commission comes along, the workers have neither the men in their ranks capable of putting up the case for them, nor the funds to get legal and professional assistance. The Chamber of Mines, on the other hand, already have a mass of evidence and argument which will take months to examine, and the position is altogether one-sided. On the one side we would have the trained experts of the Chamber of Mines opposed by men who may be excellent miners but are hopeless advocates. In these circumstances, if the Government wishes to make the commission the searching enquiry it should be, and I am sure the Government does wish this, then it will be necessary for the mine workers to get the professional assistance it now has not the money to pay for. It would be fair to offer to finance both sides, but on the side of the Chamber of Mines it is not necessary, because it already has at its command the best professional advice obtainable in the country. Until something is done in the way indicated, I am afraid the representatives of the chamber will have matters much their own way before the commissioners who have no knowledge of mining matters, and the men as they read the published evidence and arguments day by day will come to the conclusion that they are on the losing side and will get discouraged and dissatisfied. From the standpoint of the mining companies, too, it is desirable that the commission should bring in an acceptable and final report, for otherwise the companies will not know whether their liability for miners’ phthisis benefits is to be £8,000,000, £9,000,000 or £20,000,000, and they naturally want some definite knowledge on this point.

It will then be final only until the next election.

If the Government does not come to the rescue of the miners now and dissatisfaction occurs, the report will be agitated against three days after it is presented. Further, it is to the interests of the commissioners themselves that they should be given every opportunity to hear all sides of the case thoroughly expounded. They have a very difficult and involved problem to deal with, so much so that at a meeting of miners you could easily get fifty different views expressed of the way to deal with this question. The commission is going to cost a lot of money, but this will not matter so long as it leads to a settlement. I suggest to the Minister that an amount be set aside for the purpose of providing the miners with expert legal and other advice. I should like now to refer to the question of housing, which is much in the public eye at the present time, particularly in Cape Town, though need for more houses is felt throughout the entire Union. I am not going to weary the House by dilating on the immense factor that proper housing is to the community. I am going to divide the subject into two sections, those who can afford to buy houses of their own, and those who have to pay rent. In the 1927 session I called upon the Government in a motion to introduce a national housing scheme, for which the Government would alone be responsible, as I thought, and still think, that the present system of divided responsibility is wrong. The Government replied that the existing system was, they considered, satisfactory and should be given a further period of trial. The Central Housing Committee has, up to the present, spent something like £2,000,000 for European housing, and a lot more would have been spent if there had not been a divided responsibility. This divided responsibility is the weakness of the whole scheme, and we have it on record that two particular schemes which were agreed to and the money allocated two years ago, are still hung up, because the authorities do not agree as to details. Assuming that the Government intends to continue the present system of dealing with housing loans, I would like to see it very much extended, so as to provide on a more liberal scale for the people anxious to get their own homes and finish with rent-paying. Owing to the Rent Act, which incidentally does not affect new houses, private enterprise is not so keen on building houses for letting as it formerly was, as it is feared the Government may interfere further. I cannot see why the Government should hesitate to provide more money than it has done up to the present, for, as a matter of fact, they are getting interest on all the money loaned, and the security is becoming better yearly as reductions are made. One of the difficulties is the divided responsibility of various bodies, which often, from motives of self-interest, put obstacles in the way. We have heard in the House about the disgraceful housing conditions in the Durban area, and yet it is a fact that of £120,000 now available for Durban, only one scheme, costing £13,000, for European housing is now being proceeded with. In other centres, too, Government housing has to face the opposition of vested interests. We hear a lot today about Cape Town’s slums, but they are probably no worse now than they have been for many years. In 1924 a very scathing report on the Cape Town slums was issued by the Medical Officer of Health, who pointed out what a menace existing conditions were to the health of the city. About the same time a good deal of Government money was being spent on European housing in Cape Town, and obviously property owners were more scared at the competition with their property than the risk to their health from the slums, for early in 1925 the late Administrator of the Cape Province, Sir Frederic de Waal, wrote a letter to the Mayor of Cape Town—

The executive committee in this way endeavoured to force its authority upon the town council, but the council went on with its work. Despite the fact that in the meantime quite a lot of houses have been built, the shortage in Cape Town is worse than ever, for the simple reason that houses built have not kept pace with the increase of population. I would like the Government itself to tackle the question of housing. The Minister, the other day, mentioned as an excuse for the Government not doing anything further, that money allocated for housing advances had not all been spent. The reason for that is not that there is no necessity for additional houses, but it proves conclusively that the Government scheme is an absolute failure; otherwise with housing so essential, the money would have been disbursed. I certainly think the Government should do more than it has done, and it should give the Housing Committee more powers to overrule local objections. Then, in the interests of the poorer men, the amount of cash required by a person desiring an advance should be very materially reduced. The Boksburg Town Council has been very lax in applying for housing facilities, and we have a few houses built by Government loans alongside many others built by private enterprise. A man who wishes to avail himself of a Government building advance of £1.000 has to have £200 in cash, but a man who wishes to build in the ordinary way by means of a loan on mortgage or from a building society assisted by a speculative builder, can have a house erected even although he has only £100 in cash, or even less. On the other hand, the man who is better circumstanced can obtain money from the Government at 5 per cent., whereas the poorer man who has to go to private enterprise for an advance has to pay 8 per cent. interest, so that by the time the poorer man has wiped out his indebtedness over a term of years he has paid something like £300 more for his house than his better circumstanced neighbour, who has been able to take advantage of a Government loan. The conditions of these Government loans are in this way not assisting the very poor to build, but they are encouraging people who could very well go for help to building societies and banks. As to the slum dwellers and other indigents, that is entirely a different proposition from assisting people to buy their own homes. It is no use talking to a man who cannot buy enough bread for his family about buying a house, but obviously the construction of houses for others must assist him indirectly, because of the law of supply and demand. The trouble is that people who live in the slums cannot pay an economic rent, which is something like 12 per cent. on the value of the property in the Cape Peninsula, and 15 per cent. on the Rand. In time to come, when wage determinations will apply to all sections of the community, no doubt living conditions will improve, but I am afraid we shall always have in our mixed community a good many people who cannot afford to pay an economic rent. We cannot look to private enterprise filling the gap, as speculative builders are out for profit and not to practise philanthropy. The report of the Housing Committee says—

Quite a number of well-intentioned people have made suggestions for combating the slum evil, but most of the suggestions are futile, ranging from raising public subscriptions to shooting a few slum landlords. If slums buildings are demolished without other accommodation being provided for the people at present living in them, the problem will be aggravated, as the congestion will be intensified elsewhere. If private enterprise cannot solve the difficulty, the next thing to do is to depend upon public bodies, but here again you cannot expect a Cape Town property owner to mortgage his property, as he does in effect when he sanctions the borrowing of money for building houses for others, any more than you can expect a member of this House to endorse the promissory note of an indigent stranger he may meet in Adderley Street. At any rate, there is no power to compel anyone to take action, and if we are to have material improvement, it must be effected by the Government, which has been burking the issue by saying that housing is a matter for the provincial or town councils. If we were to have an epidemic, the Government would be compelled to step in in the interests of public health, and it would do so after valuable lives, both inside and outside the slums, had been lost, although the money required to fight the epidemic would have gone a long way to providing decent housing accommodation. It is not a question of charity but of good business, for sooner or later the Government will have to step in and buy the slum properties practically for what their owners ask for them. The Government has received windfalls in the shape of surpluses and money from the diamond diggings, and it proposes to give to the provinces a free gift of £1,000,000 for road building, which, no doubt, will open up the country and also allow the rich to enjoy motoring more than they do at present. I would suggest that the Government might also make a free gift of £1,000,000 for housing the very poor right throughout the country. If this were done, instead of the tenants being asked to pay economic rents, they would be required to pay only a sufficient rent to maintain the buildings. This would be a permanent solution of the problem. The Government also might in this scheme make provision for old age pensioners. At present we have 40,000 people drawing old age pensions whose only crime is that they are too old to work; and the Government presents them with a miserable pension of £30 a year as a grateful recognition of many years’ useful citizenship. By the way, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance when he is going to increase the amount of the old age pensions. What has already been given has proved a great blessing to the recipients and being much appreciated, but it is felt that it is only an instalment of a scheme to adequately meet the cost of living conditions in this country. Old age pensioners who are living with relatives can eke out an existence on what they get, but anyone who has to hire at least one room in any of our big cities will tell you that to get a room in a decent quarter practically takes up the whole of the pension money. Therefore, old age pensioners are compelled to come under the same category as slum dwellers and should be provided for in any housing scheme. The Minister has deservedly gained a high reputation as a financier, and I would like him during the recess to consider this question of housing the very poor. The conditions under which they live to-day are a reproach to our civilization and a menace to our moral and physical well-being. I am satisfied that if the Minister would only take the question into consideration he would be able to bring forward a solution which would be to the benefit of not only these unfortunate people but also the country at large.

We are very pleased to see hon. members from other parts of the country taking an interest in these towns. The hon. member confined his remarks to the slums of Durban and Cape Town, but he might with advantage have told us something about Boksburg. They have no slums there but they have locations, and I would like him, when he goes back, to put in order what I understand to be the worst locations in South Africa.

It is not true; you do not know what you are talking about.

Every member in this House must agree with the Minister when he pays so high a tribute to his staff. We who frequently use the railways know that we always receive the greatest courtesy, and that the staff is most tactful in dealing with the public. There are, of course, exceptions, and had we the privilege of having women in this House I am sure they would tell us something about the treatment some of them receive from some of the inspectors and stewards on the trains. From what I have heard there is very little improvement in regard to the complaint of their opening the doors of carriages without giving proper notice. I have had numerous complaints. The Minister has looked into it and many of these men are very careful now, but there are still a few who should be dealt with. I think this complaint ought to be remedied as soon as possible. It seems a pity we should have to spend so much time in correcting the statements of responsible ministers. Last week I dealt with the matter of the special bulletin, and I now have to refer to the matter of the electrification of the Sea Point line. The Minister of Railways has repeated that the responsibility for this lies with the previous Government. The Prime Minister also stated that the other day by way of interjection, and the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) said they could not get out of electrifying that line because a contract had been entered into. I would like to show that all this is fallacious. There was no contract entered into before 1924 and the Government was in no way bound until nearly 1928 to electrify that line. The position is that according to the white paper issued in 1920 the engineers made a report on the electrification of several lines. They advised the electrification of the Cape Town-Touws River section, Cape Town-Simonstown, Monument-Sea Point, Monument-Table Day Docks, Durban-Glencoe, Glencoe-Vryheid, and the Witbank to Randfontein section. By this white paper we find the administration recommended as follows—

No word about the Sea Point line! Then in 1924 there is another white paper issued and there we find that the lines proposed to be electrified were Cape Town to Simonstown, Monument to Sea Point, and Monument to Table Bay docks. So members will see that even at this late date, June 30th, 1924, after we went out of power, the administration still recommended the Monument to Table Bay docks electrification. There was no necessity to proceed with it because there was no contract such as was suggested the other day. It further states—

Then we come to 1926 when we had a select committee on the electrification of the Natal line, and we find on page 398 of the report there is a statement by the chief engineer, to the effect that on January 7th, 1925, he had submitted to the general manager. [Extract read.] Thus on January 7th, 1925, there was still no final decision in regard to the electrification of the Sea Point line. I would also draw the Minister’s attention to an address by Dr. van der Byl on the 27th of January, 1928, in which he said—

On this lecture being brought to his notice the general manager of railways on the same day at Johannesburg, in an interview with “The Star,” pointed out that the Railway Administration was under an obligation to carry out the scheme as they had “an undertaking with the citizens of Sea Point” and that, compared with the alternative proposition of a motor speedway, it was prohibitive. The administration had to undertake that the citizens of Sea Point should have open railway communication. The density of passenger traffic at certain periods of the day, he said, would make Dr. van der Byl’s scheme impossible. I would like to ask the Minister what was the obligation to the Sea Point people. It was to keep the railway line open; not to electrify it. I put it to the Minister that the people of Sea Point were never consulted on the electrification of the line and were never asked to give an opinion. When we refer to the report of the Auditor-General for 1927-’28 we find that money was spent not only on electrifying the line at great cost, but a vast sum had been spent on relaying the line when it had been relaid as recently as 1923. It was not at the request of the Sea Point people, and not a case of the Minister’s being in any way bound to do so. It cost £20,637 for electrification and £16,583 for the relaying. The loss under electrification more than it was under steam was £16,000, signalling arrangements cost £6,954 and with other items, the total was £61,543. This was all spent four years after the Minister came into power, so I trust that he will in future refrain from putting the whole onus on the previous Government. We will save more time in future if he will not always try to make party capital out of this. There was no commitment of any kind.

Was there not this Act of Parliament?

Must I remind the Minister again that the Government took over the line under an agreement with Sea Point.

Was there an Act of Parliament?

Where was the contract with the people? If your adviser advised very strongly that it could never be payable under any circumstances the Minister surely would not be held liable because an Act of Parliament had been passed. In spite of an Act of Parliament you did not build other lines; did the Minister electrify the line to Cape Town docks, the line to Touws River, to Witbank and to Komatipoort? The Minister is continually trying to say that the South African party was responsible, but they were not in any way responsible. We have been challenged because we have said that the expenditure of the railways has become far too great. Let me deal with the cases in the order in which the Minister dealt with them. He said that the earnings had been increased £785,000, and that to get that, they had spent on main services, transportation, etc., £98,626. There are several other heads which must be brought into the calculation if you wish to show that by your actual running you have saved money. By itself it seems excellent, but the Minister has told us nothing about the increased expenses of what are generally known as main services, subsidiary services and expenditure on net revenue. On these three items alone, during the last three years we have on main services an increase of 18½ to 20¾ millions, on subsidiary services from one to one and a half millions and on net revenue from five and a quarter to six and a quarter millions, or three and a half millions increase on these three heads alone. These headings must have an intimate connection with expenditure when you are trying to show that by making so much it will cost you so much less than previously. The general manager’s office ought to be taken into account, surely, and the increased expenditure there was £27,600, and for the four years altogether since 1924, £46,000. In the accountant’s office, the increase last year was £104,000, or since 1924, £136,000; and then we come to a very important and interesting point. We might say that the general manager’s office expenses must increase as you increase your traffic, and perhaps the same in the accountant’s office, but why should the expenses of the Railway Board increase? In 1928, these went up from £11,000 to £17,000, and the strange part of this is that you find it nowhere in your estimates clearly stated. It is spread all over the place. The Railway Board’s expenditure is partly under “railways” and partly under “harbours” and partly elsewhere. If you have more added to your train mileage, the expenses should not automatically go up in the directors’ office. The running expenses have increased by £272,000. They now stand at five and a third millions. Even this is far more than the Minister’s £98,000, but this figure, according to the calculation of the Auditor-General should be very different, and the increase should be something nearer £640,000. It will be interesting to know how the Minister has arrived at his figure, because if the auditor is correct he must be wrong. There is an increase of £1,100,000 in actual expenditure, but that is not the only increase. I am absolutely certain that as the year passes we are going to have an application for supplementary expenditure.

Have we had it this year?

These applications come at the beginning of the new session of each year. The new session will begin in January. The amount will be increased again. The Minister must not think that everybody in the House is a newcomer. He knows that he comes with applications every year.

Did you not have them too?

Exactly, that is why I say the increase is certain to be asked for. The Minister anticipates increase in railway revenue to £512,000 per week, or approximately £10,000 per week more than last year. The total expenditure is £105,000 more than his revenue. And I say, on his own Estimates, and on the showing of the Auditor-General, we have every right, as we have done in the past, to claim that the expenditure is increasing far too rapidly in comparison with the increased income on the railways. If we compare the increase in revenue and expenditure with what it was in 1924 we shall find still stronger reason for saying that the expenditure is going up far too rapidly. When we remember the magnificent budget of the Minister of Finance, the fact that our railway expenditure is advancing too quickly will become much clearer. According to the budget of the Minister of Finance, everything is prosperous in the country, and when everything is prosperous, we naturally expect that the company, we will call the department a company, which holds the monopoly of the transport, should also be prosperous. In comparison with the country, the railways are in a very serious position. If we have anything in the nature of a slump, the Minister will find himself in difficulties. It is very easy to increase expenditure, but when we come to reducing it, it is a different and even dangerous matter. I hope, for the country’s sake, the Minister is not going to experience that difficulty in the near future. Forgetting all that the Minister has said about us in the past, hon. members on this side of the House hope for the sake of the country that the Minister is not going to find himself obliged to reduce salaries and wages. He has increased his expenditure by one million more than he has increased his income, and surely that is not a healthy sign. There is something wrong somewhere. Earnings increased from 1924-’29 from £24,000,000 to £31,000,000, while expenditure increased from £23,000,000 to £31,000,000. Expenditure increased £8,000,000 in six years, or at rate £567,000 more per annum than under previous Government. We will take another basis. Take the open mileage, and we find that whereas the open mileage in 1925-’26 increased by 4 per cent., the expenditure went up by 11.5 per cent. In the following year, the open mileage increased by 3 per cent. and the expenditure by 5½ per cent., and in 1927-’28 open mileage increased by 1½ per cent. and expenditure 3 per cent. The Minister mentioned the operating ratio, and was proud because he had brought it down to 77 per cent. compared with 79 per cent. in 1927-’28. The improvement is 2 per cent. He failed to remind us that when the country was not prosperous, in 1924, the operating ratio was only 74, or 3.8 per cent. better than it is to-day. Take the train and engine miles. There has been a progressive increase year by year. The comparison between 1924 and 1928 shows that whereas the mileage increased by 1,400, or 11.2 per cent., the personnel increased by 9,000, or 23.6 per cent. In 1924, six persons were employed on the open mile, and to-day we have 6.8. I have complained that the expenditure is far too great, and that the Minister should see whether he cannot cut down his expenses very materially. In the old days the Minister and the Minister of Finance were most eloquent when preaching economy. To-day they seem to object to it, or is it that their objection is that we suggest they should be more economical?

Why don’t you put your finger on the spot where we can reduce?

Have I not shown the Minister many instances where he could reduce? Let me remind him that the man who succeeds him in the office of Minister of Railways is going to have a miserable time. I would envy no one in that position. He, if he is out for the interests of his country, is bound to become most unpopular, and if he is prepared to carry on as at present he certainly will not be doing his duty.

Do you suggest that we should reduce the wages?

We no longer hold the monopoly of transport in South Africa, and many of our lines are unpayable. We have a capital expenditure of £155,000,000 to-day, and people will appreciate this more when they are reminded that they are paying £6,000,000 by way of interest every year, or £16,000 every day—then they will start to appreciate what it means. Some provision must be made if we do not wish to find ourselves in a serious position when we have to pull up some of these lines, which I hope we shall never have to do. This interest has been growing seriously in recent years. In 1924-’25 it was £4,600,000; 1925-’26 £4,900,000, to 1926-’27 £5,170,000; 1927-’28 £5,500,000, and 1928-’29 £5,960,000. Here is another case in which the Minister could reduce expenditure very materially. We hold stocks of railway material at Salt River, Uitenhage and Bloemfontein valued at £283,128 in excess of what has been held necessary for the railways, involving an interest of £1,400 annually without any return. This has been going on for years; during the last four years we held stocks which value at £495,000, £298,000, £255,000 and £747,000 over the required quantity. Thus in four years it cost us £9,000 by way of interest. I have shown the Minister where he can save £9,000 a year, by his department not being overburdened with stocks. Year by year the amount of stocks necessary are exceeded. Take the question of sleepers. Steel sleepers cost 9s. 6d. each, South African yellowwood, 9s. 11d. each, and with the addition of bolts and screws this reaches 12s. 4d., which is not all. The life of a steel sleeper is 35 years, and a yellowwood sleeper lasts only 15 years. The cost per year works out at 3.62d. for a steel sleeper and 8d. for a wood sleeper, and for 35 years 9s. 6d. for a steel sleeper and 23s. 4d. for a yellowwood sleeper. I would draw attention also to the economic loss to South Africa in the cutting down of these magnificent trees for the purpose of making railway sleepers. The railway department is paying more than is necessary for sleepers. We are paying too much, and we are depriving the industries of the country of a very valuable wood, which is serviceable and of immense value to us commercially. Why cannot we go in for steel sleepers? Then I would like to call the attention to the men who are cutting down these trees. We should put these men into positions where they will have an opportunity of advancing and not keep them always at wood cutting.

Where shall we put them?

On the railways, where you have been settling so many people, but I would prefer to have them on the land. If the money which has been spent by the railways in yellowwood sleepers had been spent in some other way, it might have brought some of these people back to the land. I am quite certain that if the Minister would go into the matter he would not only be able to save money spent on the sleepers, but also better the conditions of the men. In regard to railway rates, there are many cases in which they could be changed. We find groceries sent from Algoa Bay to Pretoria at rates 42 per cent. above prewar; sugar 54 per cent. from Durban to Johannesburg; boots and shoes imported 81 per cent., Point to Bloemfontein 71 per cent. South African made boots and shoes, Port Elizabeth to Bloemfontein 70 per cent. above pre-war. According to the last return the South African made boot pays one penny a pound more on railage to-day. Agricultural machinery, Point to Johannesburg, is 65 per cent. above pre-war; for local consumption, Witbank to Johannesburg, coal is more than 27 per cent. above pre-war; wool, Kroonstad to Cape Town, 84 percent. above pre-war; cement, Hercules to Bloemfontein, 97 per cent. above pre-war; maize, Bloemfontein to Cape Town, 50 per cent. above pre-war; grain, Bloemfontein to Pretoria, 34 per cent. above pre-war. Let us consider the position in England where the railways are owned by public companies. In 1921 the various railway systems were placed under a tribunal which found great difficulty in working the railways to the satisfaction of the people until the Government appointed a traders’ co-ordinating committee to represent the commercial community. This committee met the representatives of the railway companies in friendly consultation, and they brought about a better understanding between the railways and the users. The ability to appreciate an opponent’s point of view arose from these consultations. I will show the difference between the Government and private administration of the British railways, the moral for us being that reductions can be made in rates and fares if the Government will consult the people directly affected. During the period of the government control of British railways there was an abnormal growth in the rate of expenditure, and the ratio of working expenses to receipts rose from 63 per cent. to 115 per cent. Under private management the net receipts of all the systems were £43,500,000, but under government control the receipts went down to £6,000,000, and in the last seven-and-a-half months of government control there was a deficiency of £19,500,000. Again, under government control the railway charges were increased by 112 per cent., passenger fares were raised by 75 per cent., and all privilege and excursion tickets were suspended. This increase of rates gave an impetus to road transport, and after decontrol the railway companies failed to recapture the traffic. So serious did the competition become that the railway tribunal met the traders’ co-ordinating committee, and agreed that out of every £100 profit made by the railways £80 would be used for reducing rates and fares in the following year. This brought about an improved condition of affairs, for obviously the more traffic the less the rates and fares, the greater becomes the volume of traffic to the benefit of railways and users alike. It was also decided that for every mile over 20 there would be a certain ton mile reduction. By these means a great deal of the lost traffic was recaptured, and it was found that it was to the great advantage of the people and the railway companies that their representatives should meet together in friendly consultation. I suggest that the Minister should consider the advisability of following this example. Apart from the periodic review of rates and charges the function of the tribunal was to act as a readily accessible and inexpensive court before which traders may seek relief from any rate or charge which consider unreasonable. The British rates tribunal also decided to reduce the number of different types of locomotives from 145 to two only. We have, I understand, 28 distinct types of locomotives in this country. I understand from conversation with the men that they feel some nervousness in changing from one type to another. The Minister will probably say that the railway rates in England are far higher than they are in South Africa, but in England the rates are lower than the average increased costs of all commodities and services during the same period. On that basis the Minister could very considerably lower our railway rates. Naturally we find a large increase in the expenditure on road motor services in the Union. I do not quibble about that, but the time has arrived when Parliament should have some say in regard to the department’s road motor transport programme. The Minister gave us no details in regard to the expenditure on these services, but there is a vote for them on the estimates of £392,000, an increase of £107,000. The total loss for 1927-’28 was £11,000 or £8,400 more than the loss for the previous year. We do not know the reason for the loss, but I presume the Minister is developing the road motor transport service and we are with him in that, but we should have some idea of his programme. The Minister should take action with regard to Monument station, which is the first station people from overseas use if they go up-country. Monument station is a thorough disgrace to the Union. On a hot day it is unbearable, on a windy day you cannot keep your eyes open there, and on a rainy day people cannot obtain any shelter. As to Cape Town station proper, I do not ask the Minister to spend much money in building an ornate station, but he should consider the safety of the railway staff. If a fire broke out, 90 per cent. of the clerks would be burned to death, as the offices in which they are located are a rabit warren with only wooden partitions. I trust the Minister will consider the points I have raised, but before doing anything else he should pay a visit to the offices at the Cape Town railway station and decide to no longer leave the railway staff to work in a veritable death trap.

I hoped the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) would take the opportunity of answering the charge I made against him in a previous debate, namely, that during the election he had given certain inaccurate information to the country and had furnished incorrect figures during the election on railway matters. He has not however thought fit to reply and to show why he gave information which he himself knows to be quite wrong. I therefore assume that he cannot reply and that he himself is ashamed today of his election book. The hon. member’s criticism to-day caused less concern than I expected and I want to congratulate him on his moderate criticism and to express the hope that it is a good token for the next five years. I am glad that he is becoming calmer and is acknowledging that things he formerly condemned are not so bad. It is nothing less than a joke however that he tries to throw the blame for the failure of the electrification of the Sea Point line on the present Government. I myself admit that the Government made a mistake in going on with it. I said at the time that it was a mistake, and results have proved it, but we must always remember as the hon. member for Sea Point knows that it was a legacy from the previous Government. It is no use trying to get away from it and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) will admit that the general manager was strongly in favour of this line and that he strongly recommended it. The Minister was new—

He had then been a Minister four years.

But the general manager recommended the electrification and if the Minister did not go on with it the hon. member for Sea Point would have asked why the Minister had not followed the advice of the general manager. The hon. member says that the inhabitants of Sea Point were not consulted. Why did he not at that time as member for Cape Town (Harbour)—as a representative of that area and that part, warn the Minister and the country, and look after the interest of his electors. He did not say that the electrification would be a mistake but was a supporter of it. If he were so certain at that time that it would be a failure it was his duty to warn us who come from country constituencies and to say that the Minister should not go on with it.

And you would have followed his advice!

In this case we unfortunately followed the advice of the previous Government and we went wrong. It is very easy for the member for Sea Point to talk about the losses to-day but the previous general manager expected a success, so did the hon. member otherwise he would have protested against the electrification. It was a failure, but the country will take no notice if hon. members opposite try to throw the blame on the Government.

You are throwing the blame on ns.

We thought you knew what you were doing but we unfortunately learned that was not so. Now we have the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members opposite talking about the increase in railway expenditure. In this connection I want to deal with something and ask the hon. member for Sea Point to reply frankly. I want to quote something that was published during the election and want to ask him if he knows anything about it. Before the election a certain body, the Nurahs under Mr. Moore, time after time in its pamphlets warned the railway workers to vote against the Pact Government and for the South African party. The reason for this advice is inter alia in the Union Railways and Harbours Journal of June, 1929, under the heading—

Mr. Moore writes in the first place that he had approached the Prime Minister who said that he promised nothing, and that the Minister of Railways and Harbours also promised nothing. Then he proceeds—

Before I read the summing up I just want to point out that the veil in the previous page is slightly lifted as to who the prominent leaders of the South African party were because there Mr. Moore writes of the good people there were in the South African party—

Notice the “might be” and the “if.” Then Mr. Moore proceeds—

So he is.

You say he is, but I wonder why the hon. member for Sea Point is not also called “a fine type of Dutchman.” I thought that Mr. Joubert was a South African, but now he is called a Dutchman. In this communication the veil is lifted a little and one can imagine that these two persons supplied the information to Mr. Moore.

I have never spoken to him.

Yet Mr. Moore says that it is an authoritative statement and he goes on to give the summing up—

Notice that Mr. Moore says: “A strong body of opinion within the South African party.” Now I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point if he knows anything about the statement.

I said that I do not know Mr. Moore and I do not want to know him.

Do you deny that it was a statement from your office? I am glad that the hon. member is not himself a part of the “strong body of opinion.” Mr. Moore continues—

Oh! the sacred words “existing rights” and the vague expression “on the grounds of efficiency.” Now I ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he is prepared to introduce the eight hours day.

What is wrong with the resolution of congress?

What does that resolution mean? Your headquarters infer that the South African party wants to give back all these things to the railway men. Is there any hon. member opposite who says that he belongs to the “strong body of opinion”? I wait for a reply.

The election is over now.

They do not say it here but outside the House they did so, and allowed Mr. Moore to use it as an authoritative statement.

They never contradicted it.

They did not do so, not even Mr. Joubert, “the fine type of Dutchman,” nor the hon. member for Sea Point. No, it is very fine when one brings these things to the notice of the hon. members opposite to hear what they have to say about them. I can imagine that they will not reply, but they will not say whether they approve of the statement or not. Is not that, then, misleading the railwaymen? Now however they complain about increasing expenditure. Privately however they approve of the publication of the thing which I have mentioned. Would not it mean a tremendous increase in expenditure? Now that the election is over they are naturally running away from the point. I wonder whether the railwaymen would have got all the nice things promised if the “fine type of Dutchman” had come into office. There is now a new school in the House in connection with railway rates. We find the hon. members for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze), Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and also the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) pleading hard for the reduction of railway rates especially on coal. It is clear that they belong to the school of Dr. Frankel and get their doctrines from it. We shall undoubtedly during the ensuing years hear much about the arguments and propositions of Dr. Frankel but it is possibly a good thing to learn what an independent person says about the book, more particularly on this point. I have before me “The Economist,” of 2nd February, 1929. The editor is certainly not a Nationalist nor a member of this House but an independent person who would certainly receive a book like Dr. Frankel’s sympathetically and give it all the praise it deserves. On chapter IV of the book he writes—

That is the opinion of a learned economist. So much for the book of Dr. Frankel to which the other side attach so much importance. I think it puts the matter in a right light for this side of the House and the public, seeing the book was written at the request of the Chamber of Mines. I do not think the Government and we can give much value to such a recapitulation and such conclusions if there had to be so much prejudice. That is also the opinion of the important journal mentioned. A point which is emphasized by Dr. Frankel and also the hon. member for Kimberley is the payment of £250,000 for redemption of our noninterest bearing capital. They say that we can abolish it in order to reduce the rate on coal. I admit that much can be said for it, for the abolition of that redemption, but I prefer to range myself with the Minister of Railways who is following a more conservative policy. We have many capital assets which are non-paying. Take the grain elevators, the dry dock at Durban, the branch lines, the suburban lines like that to Simonstown, all assets where large capital is invested but which show losses. Further remember the competition of motor traffic which is only in the commencing stage and of which no one, neither the Minister nor we nor the economists know what the eventual effect will be.

Soon we shall have the aeroplanes.

Yes, the library contains a number of books which deal with the state of affairs created for the railways in various countries, through the private motor services, and in all the books it is pointed out that the railway companies are asking themselves what the eventual lot will be of all the capital invested in railways. We have invested largely in it and cannot be indifferent about the non-interest-bearing capital. We must see to it that the position is safe when the assets no longer pay. Something can be said superficially in favour of the statement of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) but I think every sensible person would rather follow a conservative policy. The redemption mentioned coincides with the sinking fund which the railways have not got. The ordinary precautions are therefore not taken. Another point in the Frankel doctrine which is also used by the Opposition relates to civilized labour. Before however I come to that I will say that hon. members opposite are coming more and more to the conclusion that they can approve the civilized railway policy on our railways. The hon. member for Springs approved of it and so did the hon. member for Yeoville. They start by approving of it but then they say “the central Government must pay for it.” That is apparently the only argument left. That is also one of the main arguments of Dr. Frankel. It is very easy to say so. If the railway undertakings which have to be run under Clause 127 of the Constitution go and employ civilized labour and pay more for it than the native, they are giving the benefit to the central Government which must pay for it, so they argue. The first argument against it is simply that if we are going to carry it through we must comb out the whole railway service to find out where posts can be filled by cheaper labour. If natives are cheaper on the railways in various posts they must be used. It would probably be cheaper to take natives throughout the whole railway system. It would be cheaper to use them as waiters, porters, etc. In that case however I should like the hon. member for Springs to tell me where we must draw the line. At the stationmasters or where? But there is another argument against it and that is the question whether the central Government is not doing something for the railways. Let us just think a little of the monopoly which the railways have to-day which is of great benefit to them. Let us remember that the central Government raises loans abroad for the railways without charging them with the expenses and commissions which have to be paid, let us remember that the railways have the use of the telegraphs, telephones, and posts of the central Government. And do not let us forget that the central Government exempts the railways from taxation. If the railways were to debit the Government with the cost of civilized labour and the central Government turned round and debited in turn all the services mentioned, railways would come off badly. No, the argument does not hold. I want to say a few words in connection with the civilized labour. The hon. member for Sea Point has again said that the people must go back to the land. I agree with the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) who said the other day that that cry of “back to the land” was become a parrot cry. Many of the people on the railways are thankful to have a living there and to get away from the land. Many of them count for absolutely nothing on the countryside.

Why not?

Because they have not the aptitude for it. There is another idea among some of our people that every man can get a piece of ground and get rich on it, but some people have not got the aptitude. If a man is suitable then he must remain on the countryside and be kept out of the town but there are many cases when the people are better off in the towns. I have spoken to many young men and asked them if they wanted to go back to the countryside, but they said no, and that they were satisfied with the sum they drew from the Government. Many of the people’s children come into the towns and get their education and training and become expert workmen. Many of them do amazingly well and some of them go to the university. What chance did they have on the countryside? They made a failure of it. It is no use always wanting to send men back who have made a failure there. It is a parrot cry as the hon. member for Beaconsfield rightly said. That idea that all should go back to the countryside only means that many of them will be deprived of any chance of advancement in life, because just as little as every son born in a parsonage will make a good minister, just so little will every boy born on a farm make a good farmer. Of those who have come to the town many have had success. At the start they have a struggle but subsequently they get permanent appointments and then they are thankful. Put them on the countryside and what becomes of them? Are they to be by owners their whole lives? Then they will never have a chance to have their children educated. I am one of those who believe that we exaggerate the cry “back to the land” and trying to force people back there who are not suitable. Put them where they are suitable and use proper discrimination and keep those that are suitable on the land. These persons who make a success of agriculture must then be assisted and kept on the land. In cases where they have no gift for it would only be folly, and both they and their children would be in a worse position than before. We admit and the Minister will himself admit that things are not just as we would like. There will however be further improvements. In this connection I want to bring a grievance to the Minister’s notice and I hope he will be able to remove it. It is that the white labourers who work hard get no leave. They only get a holiday five days in the year with pay, that is on days like Christmas Day, Good Friday, etc., and for the rest they can get twelve days’ leave a year without pay. All will admit that these men should have the right to get ten or twelve days’ leave with pay so that they can have a rest. Or to start with they might receive half pay. As things are to day many of the boys do not take the leave because they cannot afford to go without pay for one day. They cannot however do without leave. This is all I wanted to say about railway matters and I hope hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Sea Point will not be as silent as the grave about things I have referred to but will reply to them.

I realize the difficulties of the Minister who is in office when on the one hand demands are made upon him for reduction in taxation and on the other hand for improvements in all directions. I take this reduction of 20 per cent. rebate in respect of income tax. I have sympathy with a large section of those who are paying income tax, but at the same time I believe that the amount of £800,000 which has been rebated by the Government could be more usefully spent in the service of the country, and I would like to suggest to the Minister one or two ways in which this sum could be more usefully applied. I take the case of old age pensions. The Government, to its credit be it said, has made some provision. But in my opinion the provision which is made is totally inadequate and not worthy of a country like this. The amount is certainly not sufficient to allow the recipients to indulge in extravagance of any kind. The Minister says he hopes the people will live within their income. I cannot see how the old age pensioners can be extravagant on £2 10s. a month. It is not worthy of the people of South Africa to let them eke out a miserable existence on that sum. I submit to the Minister consideration of this matter, and I am sure he is sympathetic. I hope he will give serious consideration at the earliest possible moment in order to make some increase in pensions and do away with the inquisitorial questions asked of the recipients. The cost of living in Canada is lower than in South Africa, but the old age pension in Canada is £76 per annum to-day. It would not be too much for the Minister to make provision for a larger amount to be paid to the old people of this country. They are entitled to it as they have served their time and are worthy of every consideration. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the question of increasing the old age pensions to at least £1 per week, and see that instead of income tax payers getting a rebate the money should he applied to improve the lot of the old people of this country. Again I feel that a portion of the rebate could be applied to increase the pensions of the Oude Stryders and returned soldiers and their dependents. I would have preferred that no rebate had been given to income tax payers and something done in the direction which I have indicated. When appeals were made for reduction in taxation, I would have welcomed some support to the appeal made by the hon. member for Langlaagte on behalf of the small traders who are overtaxed through the medium of licence fees. Whilst the maximum amount of licences has been fixed at £100 the very small people who used to pay only £1 now have to pay a minimum of £5 and are called upon to pay a multiplicity of licences. This is a serious hardship, and I know of many cases in the Transvaal where people have had to go to charitable institutions to obtain assistance to enable them to pay their licences. Licences should be utilized only for registration purposes and not for raising revenue, this system of indirect taxation being a very bad one. Let us have less indirect taxation and more direct taxation if necessary, so that people can know exactly what they pay in taxes. I hope the Minister will amend the Licences Act in this respect at any early date. We have had what I may describe as frantic appeals for the relief of taxation on the mining industry. I am satisfied that the mining industry, although it is in the hands of private companies, is an asset which has to be developed in the interests of the community as a whole, and so long as the world utilizes gold, it is desirable that facilities should be given for every ounce of the precious metal to be extracted. Naturally, when affording relief to the mines, conditions will have to be imposed, and I urge that one condition should be that facilities should not be granted at the expense of the workers, although from a national point of view any handicap which prevents the extraction of the ore to the fullest extent should be done away with. I appeal to the acting Minister of Mines to enlarge the scope of the miners’ phthisis commission, and also its membership, so that it can enquire into the mining industry as a whole and investigate wages and conditions of labour, as well as the question of labour supply. There is very considerable dissatisfaction amongst Rand miners as to the conditions under which they work. Although at the last general election they may have voted in a certain way because, politically, they prefer our Nationalist friends to the South African party, the majority of the Rand miners have not yet forgiven the Government for letting them down over the De Villiers award. There should be a full and fair enquiry to ascertain whether they are not entitled to increased wages and better conditions. The commission should, as I have suggested, also enquire into the question of native labour supply. Although at one time I accepted the shibboleth that you can work the mines with white labour, investigations in which I have, from time to time, been engaged, have forced me to the conclusion that the whole question of the native labour supply for the mines should he reviewed. While additional facilities should be given to the mining industry for recruiting native labour, there should be some guarantee to the European miners, so that the number of white miners may be increased in a certain ratio with the increase of native labour. I think such an investigation would not only show the necessity for an additional supply of native labour, but that in spite of the Mozambique convention there are other territories than Portuguese East Africa whence natives can be obtained for the mines. I wish to join issue with the Minister of Finance over the £9,000,000 he has derived from the customs duties. As a profoundly convinced protectionist, I believe it is imperative in a new country that industries should be protected by duties or bounties. I am very much in favour of giving the necessary amount of protection to every industry which can make out a good case, but the very fact that we collect in one year £9,000,000 in customs duties, shows that to a substantial extent our protective policy is a failure for, otherwise, we should not be importing the goods on which this large sum has been collected. In other words, the consumer has been taxed unnecessarily to the tune of £9,000,000 in twelve months. An investigation should be made—not into the question whether protection is right or wrong, for we should accept that it is right, but—as to what steps can be taken to so impose protection as to result in the establishment of industries and not as a means of indirect taxation. In Clause 4 of the Tariff Act it was laid down that the workers should be protected against sweating and the consumer be safeguarded against being overcharged for articles manufactured in the Union. In my opinion, Clause 4 of the tariff is a dead letter. I do not know of any cases where anything definite has been done by the Board of Trade or the Ministry to enforce the application of Clause 4. I want to take the case of the sugar industry. I criticized the original increase in the duty but I submit that to-day there is an even greater case for opposing the protection given to the sugar industry. It is not an industry which is giving employment to any large portion of our European population. It is run on the cheapest possible labour. This Board of Trade report showed how inefficiently the industry was being run, and how little the public generally was benefiting from the pampering of that industry In spite of that the Minister, at that time, thought fit to impose a suspended duty of 3s. 6d. per hundred pounds in addition to the 4s. 6d. per hundred pounds already existing, and that duty became operative, so that the industry was then protected to the extent of 8s. per 100 lbs. How is it being utilized? It is being utilized at the expense of the people of South Africa. On the one hand, the public of South Africa have to pay £25 per ton for the sugar, but on the other hand the industry charges the overseas public only £15 per ton, so that we are taxing our own people to the extent of £10 per ton, in order to enable the sugar industry to dump its sugar overseas. To-day we have the almost ridiculous position that the sugar industry comes to the Minister—and I understand the Minister agrees with the industry—for further protection against dumping. Why, we are the worst dumpers in the world. The general principle of dumping has always been that if a foreign country sends articles to you and charges less than it charges to its own people, then you impose a dumping duty. But what are we doing? We are sending goods overseas at £15 and charging our own people £25. We are dumping the sugar, and now because someone else comes along and sends sugar to this country, which, in spite of the 8s. per 100 lbs. duty and the cost of freight, is sold below our own prices, we are now told that we must give the sugar industry protection against dumping. I submit we are making ourselves look ridiculous in the interests of an industry which in that regard has not deserved it. The best method of protecting the South African sugar industry against having sugar dumped in South Africa is for the industry to reduce the price of their sugar here. If they reduce the price of sugar to £22 10s. per ton, then, according to the figures, it will not be possible for any other country to dump sugar in South Africa. I do hope the Minister will seriously consider this before he gives a final decision in favour of giving an additional duty to the sugar industry At any rate, sugar is an article of food of importance to the people, and I think the people are overtaxed in the interests of that industry. The Minister instead of increasing the duty should consider the advisability of reducing it, or of forcing the industry to reduce the price charged in. South Africa. The Questions of tariffs brings me to another point. I want to deal with it, not from a party or from a racial point of view, but from the point of view of South Africa. I refer to the question of imperial preference. I can understand a country which is a free trade country being opposed to preference, but I cannot understand it of a protectionist country. As long as you impose duties against other countries, then the rebate that you give, the imperial preference which you give, in favour of goods manufactured, in, say, Great Britain, is really an advantage to the people of South Africa because to that extent the taxation they pay through customs duty is reduced. If by doing away with imperial preference you could secure that the goods which were imported would be manufactured in South Africa, I would be the first to say, do away with every penny of it, because our first consideration must be the establishment of industry in this country and the provision of work, but, so long as that rebate does not prejudice the establishment of industry in this country, then it is not only desirable to give that preference to Great Britain because she is our best customer, but also because it is in the interest of the consumers of South Africa. I believe that between the amount of rebate in 1925 and that of to-day there is a substantial difference—a reduction of the preferences from £1,000,000 to £600,000 per annum, and to that extent the taxation on consumers has been increased by the alteration in the preference policy. I look at it purely from the business point of view, and I urge the Minister to seriously consider the whole question rather from the standpoint of increasing preferences or of applying them in other directions.

What about Snowden?

As far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, it is not our business to interfere with the policy of Great Britain, nor is it the business of Great Britain to interfere with the policy of South Africa. Mr. Snowden has always been a free trader, in fact, I believe he is more interested in free trade than a good many of the social problems which we believe should be tackled, and, therefore, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is naturally anxious to give effect to the policy he believes in. I will say this, that I believe the policy adopted by our Government last year in regard to the German treaty made it easier for Mr. Snowden to introduce the principle which he is trying to introduce in Great Britain. But let me remind this House that a large section of the Labour party in Great Britain—numbers of Ministers and members of Parliament—are in favour of imperial preference, and that is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement that he is anxious to grant other facilities so as to foster trade between Great Britain and the dominions. That being the case we should do nothing by reducing our preferences to weaken the hands of those who desired to foster trade between Great Britain and the dominions. We have trade commissioners overseas, and you are asking the trade commissioner in the United States to do the impossible and to create big markets there for our exports when we know perfectly well that the United States is ringed round with a huge tariff, and is still so dissatisfied with the position that it is actually increasing its tariff, in respect of many commodities. What possible hope can we have of building up an export fruit trade in the United States when they have their own fruit production there? On the Continent it may be easier, but most of the continental countries are protectionist and anxious to provide work for their own people, and are not likely to encourage an export trade from South Africa. In my opinion, from a business point of view, in dealing with trade and industry the first essential is to create a home market. We should develop this country, and instead of the pittance many people get, we should adopt the principle of a national minimum wage which would increase people҆s spending power and be a boon both to themselves, to farmers and to industrialists. Your next essential should be the development of the African market. Instead of sending highly paid trade commissioners to Germany, Holland and the United States, I would rather send them to Rhodesia, British East Africa and the Belgian Congo to develop our trade there. I read only the other day in a trade report about the imports of these various colonies, and saw the infinitesimal amount of the trade we get. We should establish trade with our hinterland, and at the same time establish co-operation between these countries and us. I should like to ask the Minister, when he replies on the debate, if he would make some statement as to what steps he proposes to take as regards what I believe to be the impending conference between the Union and Rhodesia. I should like the Minister to take a leaf out of the book of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Prime Minister of England, who I notice in dealing with the Imperial Conference, which is to take place next year, has indicated that he is making arrangements that not only will members of the Government be represented, but other parties, so that it will be a national conference. The Minister can do no better than take a leaf out of the book of the Prime Minister of England, so that not only the Government and officials shall be represented at that conference, but other people as well, so that it will be a national conference. In addition to dealing with the question of trade and customs, might I suggest to the Minister that it would be well for it to consider also the question of building a railway from Walfish Bay to Rhodesia through Bechuanaland. This is practically an unknown country, and has wonderful assets. This railway would create a market and a hinterland on the one hand, and give employment to people in this country on the other hand. It would be a useful and reproductive work. In spite of prosperous conditions we have a great deal of unemployment and poverty. Yesterday we heard from the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) the first real lesson from an Afrikander of the position of the Afrikander poor people here, and what they want to improve their lot. Many of us agreed with the hon. member, and many others sympathized with him. In any case I believe everyone on that side and this side of the House was perturbed by the eloquence of the hon. member’s appeal. I am sure that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) can tell this House of the unemployment and poverty which exist in his district, and the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) can do so too if his Whip allows him, and so can the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius). Take the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz). A few days after the election his good lady issued an appeal to the people of the Transvaal for charity for the poor people of the Brits constituency. You have other places like that in South Africa, and it is time people should get away from the crack of the whip and see that they are the representatives of the interests of the people; instead of fighting against this or that party they should fight against poverty and unemployment.

In dealing with what are considered to be the big things of life, it is necessary to get back to the principles. Taking the railway administration, it has a capital of £150,000,000, an annual turnover of £30,000,000, and employs some 86,000 persons in the service. These figures are big enough to make it imperative that sound principles should be applied to the management of such an immense concern. It is useful to remember that there are three great primary industries in the world and three only, namely, growing things, making things, and moving things. Every form of life and activity can be grouped under one or other of these. These three great industries are interdependent; they are as essential to one another as the three legs of a tripod or a three-legged stool. And the most important of these three is the moving of things. Everything that happens in life is the result of movement of some sort. If we look to nature, grass, grain, fibre and so on wherever they appear, it is the result of movements in nature. The seed collects its requirements from air, earth, fertilizer and moisture-producing growth which in turn is moved into the animal and industrial spheres. The same thing applies to our industries. What are manufactures but the shifting and rearrangement of component parts? In the realm of thought when distinguished writers, of which you, sir, may claim to be one, conceive an idea, and desire to communicate the creatures of their imagination to an expectant world, it is necessary that thought, to be effective, should be moved on to paper and into print. Those of us who have taken part in elections lately have seen with much interest and sometimes with concern the effect of the movement of large bodies of voters from one place to another at the psychological moment. I have briefly attempted to demonstrate that the three big things of life are agriculture, industry and transportation. Our Minister of Railways might be more appropriately termed the Minister of movement. He deals with all sorts of movement—by train, by motor and by ship. His functions are to see that the country is provided with cheap, effective and rapid transport. It is our duty to assist the Minister by counsel and advice. We encourage him when he is right, and we counsel him when we think he is going wrong. If hon. members have followed me, they will agree with me as to the importance of the great department over which the Minister presides. They will agree that it should be a whole-time job, and that it requires the undivided attention of the Minister, and of the Railway Board and of the whole of the railway staff. The capital, equipment and energies involved should not be diverted into other channels. We all agree that railways and harbours should not be used as taxing machines. I am afraid that they are to a certain extent, and that the results are not satisfactory to those most concerned. The Minister has no business to be proud of surpluses in his department. He should endeavour to render services as cheap and as efficient as is possible. There is no doubt that the quite honest and well-meant intentions of the Minister to solve, or at any rate to relieve, the poor white problem by means of a civilized labour policy has proved a failure. The Minister I see does not agree. May I ask him to follow me for a moment? The Minister told us in reply to a question a few days ago what remuneration these civilized labourers are receiving. I will take the highest rate he quoted, 5s. 6d. for labourers over 21. It runs down to 3s. according to age, but I am taking the highest rate. A man is paid at the rate of 5s. 6d. per day. The average working month is composed of 26 days, which brings the total monthly wage to £7 3s. That is not the whole of the story. I want to draw attention to official deductions—pension, 7s. 4d.; school fees, 5s.; bed, 2s. 6d.; room, 2s. 6d.; coal 1s.; light, 6d.; board £2 5s., making a total of £3 3s. 10d. The average monthly nett wage then amounts to only £3 10s. 2d., on which the labourer has got to clothe himself and to clothe and keep his family, if he has any. Will the Minister contend for a moment that is a useful step towards raising the position of those people. What is the result of that? I know the Minister claims that they get other advantages. They receive free medical allowance and a free railway pass.

A free house or an allowance in lieu therefore.

Still it leaves a sum of but £3 10s. a month for a man to clothe himself and clothe and keep his family.

I do not admit those figures.

At all events those figures are substantially correct. These individuals lose their pay on every day on which they are absent through sickness or some other cause. I come back to this. When you deviate from principles you are bound to create hampering influences in the railway service and you do not achieve the permanent betterment of the condition of these poor people. This civilized labour policy is costing the country a very large sum annually. The lowest estimate I have heard is £600,000, and I have heard a much higher sum, but I do not know if the figures are correct or not. The Minister does not disclose the information. Another subject I have brought to the Minister’s notice before is the unfair treatment of Buffalo Harbour, and I want to give the House a few enlightening figures. It is proverbial that comparisons are odious, although I do not say the comparisons I make are hostile to other ports. Buffalo Harbour has not received anything like that proportion of expenditure which its importance warrants. I do not grudge the expenditure on other Union ports for a moment. Durban has been provided with a grain elevator, the total cost of which was £1,313,523; Cape Town has also had a grain elevator erected at a cost of £525,490; the loss on the working on the elevator last year was £47,000 and the cumulative loss £208,000, which is a very serious figure for the country, and I do sincerely hope the country has got some adequate return for this huge expenditure and loss. With reference to the graving-dock in Durban which cost £1,500,000 the loss on working last year was £79,726, and the cumulative loss to March last year was £238,684. Nothing has been spent on Buffalo Harbour, however, in grain elevators or graving-dock, and I do not grudge the other harbours in the Union what has been spent upon them. Considering the great and increasing traffic of this port, it has not been well treated in the past and I do not see anything on the horizon which leads me to think that it is going to be any better treated in the near future.

What about oil sites?

Yes, the sites are part of the great expansion which is going on in Buffalo Harbour. Oil is to be stored in bulk and distributed at cheaper rates throughout the country. The Minister has always fallen back on the plea that it will cost too much money to improve Buffalo Harbour. I have here the loan estimates for the current year, and I find that for harbours a sum of £363,328 has been put down, and when I come to the case of Buffalo Harbour I see only £22,000 is allotted to the immediate requirements of that port. Bearing in mind the figures I have quoted, I would like to point out to the Minister of Railways that we are not getting a fair share of the Government’s attention at Buffalo Harbour. In relation to the oil tanks, the total amount voted for that was £16,000, of which about half has been spent—probably more than half has been spent up to date. If hon. members visualize the position they will see that the tank sites are excavated to a depth of 250 feet in the west bank. With reference to the turning basin, the Minister, if he did not actually promise it, was guilty of what may be termed contributory negligence in allowing the promise to gain credence. He said words from which he cannot be absolved, and gave the impression, which was shared by many people, that a turning basin was to be provided. It was a natural inference to draw. The Pact candidate at the last general election told the people of East London that if he were returned as their member there would certainly be a turning basin provided for the port within six months of the opening of Parliament. Did the Minister authorize that statement?

I did not. Did I not deal with it on the public platform at East London?

You did, and I will quote your words. The Minister repudiates that, and I hope this repudiation will be known so that if any candidate comes up at the next general election with such a statement, we shall know what value to attach to his words. But the Minister, when questioned on the same occasion, “assured the people that the interests of East London would not be lost sight of.”

Have you any objection to that?

No, but this was accompanied by a movement of the head and a flicker of the eyelid—the nod and the wink, sir! But it is like giving a man who asks urgently for a pair of boots the right foot boot with the obvious suggestion that the left will follow. We have got the right foot boot in the excavation on the west bank. It is no wonder that there is profound disappointment and concern at East London at finding that the Minister has not put anything on the estimates this year for the completion of the turning basin in Buffalo Harbour. In April or May last, when we were all very busy over the general election, I am informed that the Minister ordered that the question of excavating the east bank for the completion of the turning basin be re-submitted to the engineers. This was whispered as a profound secret to everyone. Did that not give some reason for people’s hopes to rise? It is quite true that the Minister did not make a specific promise, but there were all these cross-bearings, including the statement of his henchman, and they all focussed on the one point—the turning basin. The position now is that three-quarters of the total cost of the work of excavation has been completed. The west bank now completed was much more difficult from an excavation point of view—much more difficult than the east bank, so that the original estimated cost of £35,000 for the total excavation has been reduced to £10,000 or £12,000 for completion. Will the Minister give us the figures he obtained from his staff in May last on this point? At present, only ships 500 feet long can come into the Buffalo River and turn, although ships of any length can enter the river. The “Carnarvon Castle” is 630 feet long, so it is obvious that she cannot enter the river and turn in safety. I have no doubt, however, that some of the smaller mailboats could even now come in and turn, but it is obvious that the Union-Castle Company cannot make special provisions for only some of the mailboats, as either all the mail boats must come in, or none at all. With the expenditure of an additional £10,000 or so, all the mailboats could enter and turn in Buffalo Harbour. Last year 6,863 passengers embarked, and 7,498 disembarked at East London, and a very considerable proportion of them—that number which travelled by mailboat—had to cross the bar and to board the steamer by means of the unsatisfactory and uncomfortable method of the basket and tug boat. That is a matter which ought to be put an end to at once. That is not the way to attract people to South Africa. It is not the way to attract people to East London. Let us go back to the financial aspect. The effect of this turning basin would be to immediately release lighters, to the value of about £35,000, which could be used elsewhere. I see that for Algoa Bay this year there is a sum of £10,359 put down for new lighters. We have 13 lighters at East London and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see these 13 lighters being towed out of Buffalo Harbour to Algoa Bay by the tug “Sir William Macintosh.” Their upkeep costs some £11,000 per annum. So you would have nearly 100 per cent. return on your outlay at once. I have not the figures to show how the administration would further benefit by the mail ships coming in and discharging their cargo, but it must be considerable. I would point out how very important it is, particularly in the immediate future, in view of the development of citrus, that these mail steamers with their large cool chambers should be allowed to come into the river, where they could load this fruit direct without its being subjected to variations of temperature. Surely it is not running the railways on business principles when you have citrus from Fort Beaufort sent over 800 miles to Cape Town instead of 100 miles to Buffalo Harbour. We have to face an enormous expenditure annually for trucks. This development would mean that much more rolling stock would be made available for coal and other goods. I understand if a truck is sent from Fort Beaufort to Cape Town with citrus, it takes three weeks before it returns to the point of departure. The same service would be served by sending it to East London and back which would take about three days. There are many advantages, financial and otherwise, in connection with this very necessary work. On a recent occasion there were 14 ships in Buffalo Harbour, and for these only six berths were available, and the ships, of which but five were equipped, were in consequence seriously delayed. This state of things cannot be allowed to go on. It is hampering the movement of goods and commodities. A wooden wharf at East London has been condemned as unsafe. If it is replaced as part of the turning basin, there will be a saving of £45,000 to £50,000. Leaving out unfair treatment and discrimination between ports altogether, it is a sound financial proposition for this work to go on. It has been calculated that the cost of completing the excavation is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £10,000 or £12,000. That would, as it happens, be largely a book entry. Everyone knows that when there is a great swell the dredgers cannot go outside the harbour. Judge of our dismay when we have sprung on us the information that the “Sir Thomas Price,” the only really suitable dredger we have, is going to be withdrawn and sent to another port. This renders our port liable to be silted up. Neither of the two old dredgers—one 29½ years and the other 25 years old—was designed for the increased depths of these days. The number of ocean-going vessels which called last year was 747, and the number that entered harbour was 578, so 169 of the larger steamers were unable to enter, and had to tranship cargo by lighter and land passengers by tugs. We have a large building known as the King’s Warehouse which is not fully utilized at present. In view of the great development of the citrus export trade which we expect, we are advised that it would be a comparatively simple and inexpensive matter to turn this into pre-cooling chambers. The rails are alongside, so there is every prospect that fruit could be handled in the best possible manner. I do not think the Minister will cavil seriously at any of the facts I have given, but I am entitled to speak of them, and Í would not be doing my duty if I did not, and if I did not urge publicly and insistently that we have suffered a great deal in the past. It is unjust, and in many countries absolutely illegal, to discriminate unfairly by means of tariffs between different localities. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has done that in the case of manganese. East London is 105 miles nearer the manganese mines than Durban (Point), and the Minister has deliberately altered the tariffs so as to prevent East London from receiving the benefit it should have on account of its more favourable geographical position. There is a difference of only 5d. to carry this manganese these 105 miles further. I think it will be admitted it is unfair. No toll is to be charged which unjustly discriminates between localities. This is the law in England and other countries. This rearrangement of rates to benefit Durban is a toll unjustly discriminating. The last thing in the world I want to do is to assume an attitude of hostility to other ports, but we do say that this discrimination is wrong. We do say that in the past we have not been treated as generously or as fairly as other ports, and I am sorry to say that the indications for the future are not as good as we could wish. I am here to give utterance to the views of the people on this matter—the people not only in East London, but in that vast territory that is served by that port. Surely the reason for the existence of a port is the hinterland. If that hinterland were not productive there would be no necessity for the port, and it so happens that the hinterland which the Buffalo Harbour serves is one of the richest and most productive in South Africa. Through Buffalo Harbour the very largest wool shipments of the country take place, and we know that wool is second only to mineral production in this country. The figures of the wool shipped last year were—from Cape Town, 17,592 tons; from Durban, 89,000 tons; Port Elizabeth, 109,000 tons; and East London. 125,000 tons. So you see we still have the highest export of wool. The position at present is that we are on the eve of a very big development in the town itself. New industries are being started. We have half-a-dozen oil companies importing large storing and distributing quantities of motor spirit. I cannot rest reassured when the Minister seeks to reassure me over the withdrawal of this important dredger, the “Sir Thomas Price,” which has been doing splendid service in the port for many years. It is to be sent to Cape Town. I daresay the needs of that harbour could be served by another dredger of a different type from the “Sir Thomas Price.” The Minister promised us that the normal traffic of the port would be maintained, and if it cannot be maintained by the present dredger, it will be sent back or another provided. The expansion of the town of East London is enormous and its development must be maintained. We cannot afford to be kept back or our progress cheeked. I hope our friends in the interior as far north as Bloemfontein will see that I am pleading for the better and more efficient handling of their goods, and I hope when the Minister replies he will be able to reassure us that the turning basin will be an accomplished fact before long.

It is really very amusing to listen to hon. members from Witwatersrand opposite pleading for the mines, when one goes back and enquires how the election on the Rand was fought by them. Then they spoke about miners’ phthisis and the morality of the poor and unfortunate man whose life was not dependent on the mines, but on whose life the mines depended. This afternoon it was stated in a debate how important the reduction of railway rates was. All this must be made easy for the chairman of mines. But nothing is said about the slaves of the Chamber of Mines, the best Afrikaners who go down the mines and sacrifice their lives there. When the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) was speaking yesterday the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) made the remark that the South African party had introduced the Miners’ Phthisis Act. He said nothing more, he did not say how lacking in principle that Act was. He did not say that the Act was such that the miners’ phthisis problem has become a great one to-day which it ought not to have become. Instead of the mines the Chamber of Mines at that time when there was plenty of money and the low-grade ore of which we now hear so much was still high-grade ore, were obliged to put aside money for the poor people who had to sacrifice their lives in the mines instead of their being obliged to develop other industries on the surface in which silicotics could find a living, they came off with hardly anything. The state has to spend a lot of money to help the people now. They have become a dead burden instead of a reproductive asset. The silicotics are willing and strong enough to earn something after they have come out of the mines, if only they can be put into other industries on the surface. In this way the Chamber of Mines would now save thousands of pounds and it would not be necessary for the Government to vote large sums of money for the purpose. In the Act at that time the provision was made that the mines, after a man had served in the mines for years, could get rid of him a few years later with a small pension. As for the point about low-grade, I want, as one who worked underground in the mines for 18 years, to say a few words. The mines are still leaving the high grade ore underground; they do not take it out; it is lying there and is only used at the end of the month if it is found if the grade has become so low that suspicion might be roused in connection with their profits. Then the good ore is taken out and one or two days is enough to put the matter in order to see that the profit is there and ore with rich gold. Thousands of tons are still lying under the ground there, but now it is said that the lowgrade cannot be taken out because the costs will be too high.

When business was stopped I was just busy explaining how the rich ore was hidden in the mines. I made this statement and am prepared to take anybody down the mines and to indicate the places. I am prepared to prove everything I say to-night. Then however we shall not go down the mines as happened in 1926 when there was an inspection of white washed walls. It must be a serious undertaking. The underground management of the mines is not what it ought to be also. There is more than one case where the overseers and samplers, by ignorance or carelessness, lose the reef and then work is done for five hundred to six hundred fathoms before it is discovered that the reef is lost, then the mining has to be done over again at double cost. Such cases are not published, but it is said that the mines are run on business principles, which is not the case. False economy is another evil; the salaries are not so rosy as is stated. We find so-called miners who on pretence that they are in the school of mines do precisely the same work for 7s. 6d. a day as the man who has to be paid £1 a day. These people however do not know enough to do the work properly but the fact that they are working there, breaks the spirit of the real miners and makes them despair of ever getting their due in future. Some miners also work in places where their lives are not safe for five minutes. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that you can pay a man for his brains and bodily energy but you can never pay him for his loyalty in working in such circumstances otherwise than by treating him as a fellow Christian and a human being and showing him that you have his interests at heart. In the mines however there is never any encouragement and the result is that the people just do the work they are paid for and nothing else. Before the big strike the mines had a fairly large profit but after the strike the miners were reduced by one half. Now the Opposition say that the mines must not be heavily taxed because heavy taxation will prevent development. Did not the mines however show the greatest profit for years? To-day a man is doing the work of three or four before 1922. Too many people have to perform various trades and the result is that 30 per cent. of the work in the mines is indirectly controlled by natives. If the 30 per cent. were controlled by white supervision the mines would be 60 per cent. better off than what they are under those circumstances. The surplus ore in the mines is thrown down the slopes by tons and tons although good prices are obtained. This is done because the profit would otherwise be too high because they unfortunately have an Opposition which pleads for a reduction of taxation. The Opposition would not advocate that so much if they did not see that a day was coming when a commission would enquire into miners’ phthisis and other matters and they want to persuade the commission that the mines cannot bear the heavy taxation. I say that the mines must be more heavily taxed and I say that the plea for higher taxes is only a plea for higher profits—because there is a saying which says “the more you have the more you want.” In connection with miners’ phthisis I want to ask hon. members whether they would agree to come to Parliament for ten or fifteen years if they knew that after that time they would die. That is precisely the position of the miners. For the reason I have given the Chamber of Mines is more of a detriment than a benefit to the State. Every year death takes thousands of the best citizens of South Africa because they are so honourable that they prefer to work on the mines than to live in the slums and bring disgrace to their names and to the names of their people by crime. The Chamber of Mines looks for the healthiest men in the country to go down the mines but after ten years they are wrecks and they and their wives and children are a burden on the State. Then the Government has to see that the children do not grow up as criminals and must prevent the miner from starving in his last years. Yet it often happens that he has not enough food. There are cases where with a diseased lung they have to work with pick and shovel for a few shillings a day. Hon. members opposite plead for the Chamber of Mines which has treated the miners so shamefully. They talk of the Act which was passed some years ago to assist silicotics but the Act has turned out a curse although it appears to be a blessing. I congratulate the Minister of Mines on the step he took in appointing a commission and I hope that as a result the Government will be fully informed of the position. Nor have I the least doubt that the miners saw the morning star in the heavens when they heard of the appointment of the commission and I hope the Minister and the Government will be spared to carry out the report of the commission. I had a number of grievances in connection with railwaymen but I do not want to go into them because I had a few words with the Minister of Railways and Harbours and am quite satisfied. It is not necessary to air my grievances because the Minister expressed his willingness to remedy them in every respect. Then in the interests of the towns I just want to make a request to the Minister of Native Affairs. According to the Urban Areas Act we in the towns have no control over the coming in of the natives with the result that the Town Council of Johannesburg—I am confining myself to that as an example—has spent more than £500,000 up to the present in supplying houses to natives in the form of locations. We however still have just as many natives in the town as before because the law provides that if a part of a town is proclaimed there must first be enough houses for the natives. When a portion is proclaimed they all run away to the portions which are not proclaimed and the object of the Act is not attained. I know that the matter is enjoying the attention of the Minister but I want with all earnestness to urge that an amendment to the Act should be made in this session, so that the Town Councils shall have the right of proclaiming a whole town and then give a license of exemption to those natives for whom houses have still to be built. I do not think that such an amendment will be opposed in the House. Then I want to add something in connection with unemployment. There is still a great deal of the unemployment which existed when the Smuts Government resigned in 1924. When I left Johannesburg there was an almost continual stream of labourers on the way to the labour bureau.

And we heard that employment was solved.

It will take a long time before everything the South African party muddled is put right.

You have had five years.

But you had fifteen years to spoil things and we know the longer an egg lies the worse it becomes. A man takes a cold in a minute but it takes a week to get rid of it. I should be ashamed to open my mouth if I was one of those who caused the terrible conditions. But if there is no room for blushing there is no chance of anything else either.

We will settle up later.

Mind the one vote.

Yes we shall know each other better later. I do not wish to make the slightest imputations against the Minister of Labour because the Government has since 1924 reduced unemployment by more than 50 per cent. but the South African party Government did so much harm that there is always some of it left, and fresh evil is always coming to light. We might compare the fifteen years of the South African party Government to a fowl’s nest which has got full of lice and it takes a long time to get rid of all the lice. The only people who can succeed are the leaders of the Nationalist party. I can unhesitatingly follow my leaders because they are worthy of it. Our leaders have already beaten the Opposition leader so that we do not see him in the House anymore; he is with the scientists probably to invigorate his spirits a bit. The Smuts Government made so many poor people, that there is at present a strong man’s Government. If hon. members and especially those opposite find fault with my remarks and if a conflict arises about it I am at all times prepared after the adjournment to meet any member on the Witwatersrand, to treat him hospitably, and take him down the mines and I will assure him that he will return with a different impression about these matters.

I am one of those who, frankly admits being surprised at the result of the elections I did not expect to see the Nationalists again returned to office, and I think my surprise has been exceeded only by their own. I know that they held the knowledge, as strongly as we all did, when we left the House after the last session, that they had the bulk of the public opinion dead against them.

Question.

It is not a question. It is a statement of fact which is proved by the result of the polling, because, the figures show that the great hulk of the electors voted against the Pact. Notwithstanding that fact the majority of the constituencies supported the Nationalists. This was due of course to the careful re-delimitation of seats. I throw this suggestion over to the party opposite, which they may find useful when it comes to an appeal to the people again, that bearing in mind the results of the last election, and the number of votes polled against them, when the next delimitation of seats takes place if they will pay a little more attention to the re-delimitation, there is no reason why they should not come back, not 60 per cent. of victories but 100 per cent. If they accept that tip from me they will then be able to deliberately disfranchise everybody who is politically opposed to them. The point however is that notwithstanding the number of votes that have been cast for them, and the number cast against them, they have obtained a new lease of life.

That you will never have.

My friend told me that when I went away last time, but here I am. Now it is true that the Nationalists have a new lease of life, but the Pact is stone dead. We buried the Pact eight feet deep in Greyville, and that is the end of it. I know that my friends on my left, the remnant of the Labour party, will support the Government as far as they possibly can, but they will not support the Pact. They are suspended between heaven and earth, like Mahomed’s coffin, and they also remind me of the lost souls in Dante’s Inferno who were not bad enough to go to hell and not good enough to go to heaven. I wish however to discuss with the Minister of Railways a matter which I know is giving him and the Government the gravest concern. I refer to the white labour policy of the Government, and I do so not only because of the letters of appeal which I am receiving from these men from all parts of the country, who are struggling against overwhelming odds in an effort to keep their families alive, but I do so for another reason. This white labour policy was inaugurated by the South African party, and it is up to every member on this side of the House to co-operate with the Government in a sympathetic manner to make that policy a success. I want to assure the Minister that I approach this grave problem as sympathetically and dispassionately as I possibly can, and it is only from that standpoint that we can hope to arrive at something like a solution. During the last election the Minister of Railways issued a bulletin, really a political bulletin, in order to impress upon the people of the backveld what a wonderful thing the Government had achieved in placing 15,000 men on the railway. I was interested to hear the criticisms passed on the bulletin by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), but personally I have no cause for complaint against the bulletin at all. I think that if there was anything that helped me in Greyville, it was this bulletin, for when I opened it I noticed that on the second page it was shown that this policy of white labour was inaugurated not by the Nationalists but by the South African party, and that it was brought about by the state of affairs which followed the 1922 revolt.

What is your objection to it?

I am not objecting to it. I entirely approve of a good deal in it. In this bulletin it is laid down that the policy of employing white labour on the railways was taken in hand seriously. Primarily it was to find employment for men who had lost their occupations owing to the 1922 strike, and in 1922, 612 Europeans were placed on the railway. These are the figures which I shall give from the bulletin which show that this policy could have been carried to a successful issue, whereas the manner in which it has been carried out by the Minister of Railways has brought about the troubles with which he is face to face at the present moment. In 1923, 1,265 men were placed on the railways, and in 1924, 1,509 men were placed on the railways. I am reading from the Minister’s own report. In 1924, the Minister goes on to say, a notable change with regard to white labour occurred, and that a definite policy of employing more European labourers was entered upon, and a little later on the South African party goes out of office, and the Nationalist party comes in. Now here is another interesting fact. In 1925 the present Minister of Railways decides to accelerate the appointing of white labourers to the railway system, but he finds himself up against a great difficulty. He finds that under the South African party administration the men were being paid a wage of 8s. 6d. a day. The conception of this idea lay with the late Government. Now this was, apparently too high, so they lowered the wages to 3s. a day to commence. It has been accepted by every reasonable man in South Africa that the least a married man can keep his family on is 10s. a day. On the railway to-day 15,000 men are drawing an average of 5s. to 6s. a day. This is a starvation wage, but that is not the minimum wage, for the minimum wage is still 3s. and this is being paid to many workers to-day. Hon. members opposite may think that this is a very small matter, and I suppose as it is to those who are lucky enough to be appointed Ministers plenipotentiary. At £3,000 a year and trimmings 3s. a day, therefore, is not worth talking about. But if they had seen what I have seen they would realize that the time has not come yet to appoint friends to fancy appointments abroad, but to turn the face inwards to the distress of our own countrymen. I wish I had the eloquence of my hon. friend the member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp, it requires that to bring it home to the Government. If they had seen, as I have seen, the distress which is existing among their own employees, who are living under conditions which should bring shame to anyone who is responsible for it or who tolerates it. I am perfectly certain they would say with me that this state of affairs has got to stop. There is no general election coming on; there are no votes to be won; so this is a time for seriously considering what we are going to do. Now the hon. members opposite are members of a party content to pay their fellow countrymen a starvation wage of 5s. 6d. a day, and plant them in the big towns where the cost of living is high. Whilst at the same time in the department of Public Works there is a clause laid down that no native shall be employed on a government contract at less than 8s. a day. There are seated opposite to me members of the party who, together with myself, went round the slums of Durban four years ago, when it was first suggested that this white labour policy should be accelerated, and who saw with their own eyes, in my company, the Indians and natives and the locations and the slums, and I pointed out if they bring these people down in large numbers they will place them in great difficulty with regard to these people already here. I also said then, if you do not send these people down too many at a time we can look after them and improve their position, but if you send them down in large numbers they will come under the influence of, and become the victims of the Indian trader and storekeeper, and other things may possibly happen. The members agreed with me that it was a perilous experiment, but the experiment was made. What has happened? You can go down there now and see for yourselves, and what I anticipated has happened. These unfortunate people are living, not cheek-by-jowl with Indians, but are living with them. Is that a desirable state of affairs? Is that what you sent your own kith and kin down to Durban for? If you are not ashamed of that, there are things even worse than that in Durban. Some of the wives of these people are so hard put to it that they have entered the employ of the Indians of Durban. We have, always in Natal, held our heads up among the natives as a white race, but you are doing all you can to lower the prestige and the influence of the white man, by putting the people in this impossible position in Durban to-day. You are dragging them down and that is being grossly unfair to them. We come now to the wages the Minister has so frequently extolled. He talks of 5s. a day as ample. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen Byron), has quoted these figures, and I need not repeat them. But when you bear in mind that 5s. a day, with these deductions, only leaves a little more than £3 a month, and there are many who are trying to support their wives and children on that. You will begin to realize something of the distress that exists. Every chance must be given to these people to raise themselves in the social scale, but one of the first difficulties they encounter is their utter lack of education. To meet this the Government appointed a certain number of teachers whose duty it was to give such instruction as would qualify the men for promotion. This instruction was originally given gratuitously by relieving station masters. Then the Government initiated continuation classes, the instructors being paid £310 per annum each. One would assume that the Government would wish that these poor men should receive their instruction free, but instead of that they are charged from 5s. to 10s. a month according to their salaries.

Shame.

Yes it is a shame and when Government takes a man into its employ and knowing that he has a family to keep he should not be paid less than 10s. a day, and that 10s. should be paid without deduction, but the average wage these poor fellows are drawing is 6s. a day. The Minister has 15,000 of these men and an increase of 1s. a day would mean an additional outlay of £250,000 a year against the railway revenue, while to bring them up to the 10s. a day scale would involve a million pounds annually. I charge the Government with employing sweated labour, yet they will not raise the wages of these men because neither the railway department nor railway users could stand the additional outlay. Personally I am in favour of employing these people, provided the conditions could be made congenial before they were engaged. I do not say the Minister has rushed this scheme with a view to filling the constituencies with his political supporters; he would never dream of doing that.

Never!

I prefer rather to think that the Minister was actuated by the highest humanitarian motives. And so it is these people must be retained but they will have to be paid a wage which will enable them to live respectably and independently of the coloured community. For one thing they have to be housed. The country is irretrievably committed to this policy which has been lightly and carelessly rushed into, and somebody is suffering as the result. Even yet it is not too late to take stock of the situation with these people, who, by the way, did not vote for me and probably never will but it is all the greater pleasure for me to stand here and take their part and do all I can for them. Now the question is what is to be done? These people have to be paid a wage on which they can live—you dare not go on sweating them, public opinion will not permit it and the railways cannot pay them a living wage and as this is a social problem, and not an economic one, the Minister of Finance will have to shoulder the burden and pay the bill and that is my last word on the subject to-night.

I did not wish to take part in the debate but when one hears such extreme hypocrisy as that of the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards)――

Mr. Speaker is that expression in order?

The hon. member must not use the word “hypocrisy.”

I withdraw the word. My vocabulary is not sufficient to substitute another word. The hon. member said that those who voted for him were the intelligent section, but if his choice is the test of the intelligence of the electors of Greyville then it is unfortunate.

On a point of order. I understand the hon. member accuses me of referring to the intelligent section of the population who voted for me. I have not referred to anything of the kind, only to those who voted against me, and whose cause I am making my own.

That is certainly an honourable admission by the hon. member. I would recommend him to go and look again at the conditions in Durban and to enquire what they were before 1924. Then he will know that the social conditions about which he is so concerned also existed then and were much worse then. Then he will also be doing a good thing in applying himself to the town council of Durban. With all respect to the Minister of Native Affairs I want to say that the people in Natal were always pocket patriots. In the Zulu War they were employed in stealing from their beloved Imperial Government, as Sir William Butler wrote, “for the sake of their pockets,” and it was on account of their pockets that the Indians were not repatriated. Now we are nursing the baby. It is they who were merely out to look after their own pockets and in that way the conditions arose in Durban which were very bad before 1924 and have not become worse since. The only fault I find with the Government is that when right through the country there is a shortage of houses it is going to give £50,000 for railwaymen in Durban. No, there it is always the same expression that the “dirty Dutch” have come in and they are afraid of the vote. That is actually the fear in the back of their heads—the “dirty Dutch” who come to vote, “white Kaffirs” as they call the people.

It is openly done.

The position is not worse but the Government succeeded to it in 1924. At that time there was so very much unemployment that the Government had the choice to allow thousands of people to die of starvation or to give them work on the railways and other places. Let the hon. member for Greyville just go and enquire in Cape Town within four minutes of this building. A year ago I had the opportunity of visiting with Dean Lavis the area between the Old Somerset Hospital and Signal Hill and there I saw conditions which were utterly miserable and which still exist to-day. There white, black, yellow, pink and red all live together in conditions I cannot describe—conditions which prevailed under the previous Government. It is under this Government that loans are now being given to town councils.

Previously also.

Quite right, but now a larger amount is being given.

The Government must give more.

Yes, that is the way of hon. members opposite. On the one hand they urge economy and on the other they say the Government must give more.

The money will be got back.

The Government gives larger loans on housing than ever before. During the last few years of the South African party regime only 115 houses were built for railway workers but in the four to five years of the present Government they have built as many as 800 houses. This shows that the present Government is making every effort to assist the poor railway workers. The hon. member should also examine conditions in Salt River and Woodstock and must not come here with gossip about conditions which have already existed in Durban for years. He can also come with me to examine conditions on the railway between Springs and Greytown. There the South African party Government broke down houses because the employment of natives instead of Europeans on the railways made the houses redundant. The result is that a terrible state of affairs prevails to-day. In my district the foundations are still at an estantia, but the houses were broken down because natives took the places of Europeans. I have already brought the matter to the Minister’s notice, but I want to say at once that the white labourers who live there to-day in scandalous conditions know that matters cannot immediately be rectified seeing the Government in 1924 suddenly adopted on a large scale the policy of white labour. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. de Souza) is not now here but he also could tell you about conditions on the high veld where the Europeans are stationed at places where only native accommodation exists. The Government cannot however immediately give every white man a house. The great point is that the hon. member for Greyville comes and whines about social conditions which he has now suddenly discovered in Durban. He can however now go back and find that they existed before 1924 and if he will enquire in Cape Town he will find that the position here has also been prevailing for many years. What did the South African party Government do to alter things? The hon. member’s sudden anxiety about the Afrikaners after the election is possibly due to the fact that like five years ago he thinks that there will be another election within six months. We shall continue with the employment of white labourers and shall gradually see that they get proper houses. In this case also just as in many others we shall have to clean up the dirty stable which we took over in 1924.

I will endeavour now to bring about a changed atmosphere after the heated air of the last few minutes. I propose to talk about ships and shipping, with which I have been connected for more or less forty years. When ships come from all over the world to our coast, they expect to find hospital harbours. What do they find? One of the most dangerous coasts in the world, very badly lighted. At certain times of the year fogs are very prevalent and navigation is very dangerous and I would strongly recommend to the Minister of Railways that the coast should be lighted in a much better way and also that really good fog-horns should be installed. I see by the budget the Minister has put a small sum on the estimates for lighters at Port Elizabeth, and I hope he will increase the amount considerably. There have been great delays and complaints by shipowners at Port Elizabeth on account of lack of sufficient lighters. After being delayed at Port Elizabeth ships expect despatch at Durban, but this they cannot get, owing to the shortage of deep water berths, and the result is more congestion and waste of time. The need for deep-water berths at Durban harbour has been apparent for years. I think the Government should make a definite move to get on with the construction of such berths. Whether they are going any further in the matter than just putting a small sum on the Estimates remains to be seen. Then we have ships coming with heavy lifts, some of which are so heavy that they have to go to Delegoa Bay—a deplorable state of affairs, that a ship has to go to a foreign port because we are unable to discharge at our own ports. The Administration is considering erecting a fixed crane, which is a very big mistake. I ask that the Administration should provide for a self-propelling floating 100 ton crane. Another hardy annual is the question of bunker rates, at which we must keep hammering away. To-day they are more than 100 per cent. above the pre-war rates. For instance when ships come into harbour to load fruit, mealies and other products, they are charged the extraordinary figure of 27s. 6d. per ton for bunkers, which is the highest rate for bunker coal of any port in the world of a coal-producing country. Another very sore point with us in Natal is the non-electrification of the Maritzburg-Durban section. The original electrification scheme was put forward to electrify the whole system from the coal mines to the port. Having got half way through the scheme the Administration leave it in mid-air, because they say the cost of construction is too high. The Administration complain of the highest current, but this unit cost would be reduced if they completed the electrification to Durban. I am not speaking without authority, because the chairman of the electricity commission also stresses this point considerably. We have a very fine trade in this country, the imports amounting to £74,000,000, and the exports to £96,000,000 including gold, and to protect this tremendous trade of ours we have the British navy which keeps our trade routes open through thick and thin. We pay towards this protection the very small sum of about £129,000 per annum. Australia spends something like £5,500,000 or 18s. 5d per head of population, and New Zealand over £700,000, or 9s. 8d. per head of population, but the Union only 4¼d. per head. That finishes the sea, and I now want to turn to a more congenial topic to the members opposite. I happen to be interested in farming, and this year in Zululand we had a very serious outbreak of malaria; it was so serious that very few realize the number of natives who died from this terrible scourge. The Government has not taken the steps it should to combat this epidemic. Farmers who have started to cut their cane have not been able to complete the work, and the mills also have been very seriously handicapped, only working up to 60 or 70 per cent of their capacity. Speaking purely from the economic ground and leaving out the humanitarian point of view, I say that the Government should take very serious steps to combat the disease, that it should appoint medical officers and establish field hospitals, to see that this state of affairs does not happen again. After all, the native is an asset of great economic value, and he should be protected and kept as fit as possible.

I am glad that at long last a sort of an attack has been made on the Government by one of the young members opposite. It was the first attack made here. Previously everything was peaceful. We listened to the hon. member for Durban (Country) (Mr. Eaton) who told us that when he was travelling through the broad Karoo on his way to Cape Town the view of the great extent made such a tremendous impression on him that the spirit of peace and co-operation came over him. He told about the influence and he made an appeal to the young members on this side to become imbued with a similar spirit. We are, of course, very thankful for that interest. We take it as a sign that Durban, the most important town in Natal, has at any rate now joined up with the Union. When we go on a holiday to Durban again we shall no longer be called “visitors from the Union.” We find the same conciliatory spirit and co-operation in the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). He asks the Government to give the Opposition a chance of jointly discussing financial matters and that the Government should not consider every vote a question of confidence. They must allow the Opposition to reduce the votes and they must not immediately threaten to resign. Now I believe that we have been elected by the country, and I think that the country has shown that it has no confidence in hon. members opposite, and if the country has no confidence, who are we to go against its decision. The hon. member wants us to give him a chance of co-operating with him. There were other matters about which we gave him and his party the chance of co-operating. Have they ever yet taken the opportunity of helping us to uphold the dignity of the country? Did they do so when we were celebrating the getting of independence? Is not this the same member for Yeoville who in 1926, after our Prime Minister had said we must have our own flag as the emblem of our independence, said that there was no such thing as South African independence, and that if we got a flag for it we would get a flag that would symbolize nothing? The same member is now opposing the appointment of ambassadors abroad which will increase our dignity, and have hon. members opposite tried by constructive crticism to assist the Prime Minister and the Government to tackle the Native question so that it shall not be necessary for us to make a party question of it? Have they tried to keep the matter out of party politics, or have they looked for electioneering capital for their parties? Ought we not then be afraid to trust them and fear that their co-operation in financial matters will result in their trying to get advantage for their party by it? Let me turn to the hon. members from the Witwatersrand who sit opposite, my neighbours. I think that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) made a special appeal to the electors and I understand that he said he had the veiled support of the Nationalist party. Did he say a word on behalf of the poor people of the Witwatersrand? No, he pleaded for harbours in Port Elizabeth and complained about the Blue Ensign not floating enough in our harbours. Can we put much trust in hon. members and their judgment? And the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze), has he come here and pleaded for the miners to whom he made such an eloquent appeal during the election? No, the hon. member pleads for lower railway rates for the coal mines. Did they send him there for that? The Government can be congratulated on the fact that there is no force in the Opposition attack. The militant phalanx—I see the newspaper call the youth of the Opposition by that term—have made colourless speeches in this House. Take the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Mr. van der Byl), who, under the influence of the British Association for the advancement of science, enlarged on the synthetic silk and synthetic wool and larded his address with synthetic jokes, for he did not attack—

Are you a Labour man or a Nationalist?

I am not South African party.

What were you three months ago?

The hon. member should have asked me that on my election platform. I was prepared to answer any questions. Hon. members opposite did not have the courage to do so. I am glad to see that the Opposition is so concerned that only true Nationalists shall sit on this side of the House. Fortunately I am safe on my seat. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) can rejoice that he still temporarily has a seat on the front benches; he can only hope that the Natal members will not deprive him of it. As for my own district, I do not want to follow the example of the other side, but to direct attention to-day to the question of silicosis and the troubles of the people. They are badly treated and do not get the advantages due to them. Life is comparatively impossible in their case. I, however, heartily rejoice that the Government have decided to appoint a commission to investigate all the grievances. I think that certainly as a result of the enquiries a number of improvements will be made. There is, e.g., a continuous complaint about the competition of the medical bureau. The miners’ interests do not meet with justice because they have no representation on the Appeal Board and they think they are entitled when three doctors are being appointed to have a say about the appointment of one of them. The hon. member for Vredefort (Maj. Roberts) has mentioned some of the points about silicosis and others we will submit to the commission, and it is therefore not necessary for me to detain the House any longer with them. There are also a few matters which affect the owners of small farms which I should like to put before the Ministers of Land and Agriculture. The first is the difficulty they have about the water supply. Sufferers from silicosis buy plots of 2, 5 and up to 10 morgen, and they have to be outside of the Rand townships so that they can get away from the smoke and dust. Now there are land speculators who draw profits from the position of those people and sell them pieces of ground without water and where it is impossible to make a living. I want to ask the Government if they cannot give more facilities as to water to the farmer and whether it cannot possibly, just as is the case to-day with natives who want to buy ground, have a proper enquiry made about the value and price of such ground. In this way the Government can see that everything is properly regulated and can protect the people against themselves and the land speculators. Then I want to ask the Minister of Lands to use his influence to enable those people to get loans from the Land Bank to improve their ground. To-day that cannot be done. So far I have pleaded for the poor men, but there are miners in my constituency and they instructed me to bring up the scarcity of native labour. This is a question which not only affects the mines but also all white workmen in the Transvaal. The figures I shall quote were furnished to me by representatives of the Chamber of Mines and I therefore take it that hon. members opposite will accept them as correct. It is said that there are about 200,000 adult natives in the Mozambique south of 22nd degree south latitude. The Mozambique Government uses 20,000 of them for its own purposes, there are independent natives amounting to another 20,000 who do not go out to work and in the Union, besides those in the mines, 10,000 are required for all purposes. Thus there are 150,000 available in Mozambique for the gold and coal mines. According to old conditions the natives could remain twenty-one months on the gold mines after being recruited, but according to the new convention they will at most be able to stay eighteen months, and it is calculated that they will only stop fifteen months on the average. Now the argument is that it will be necessary, in order to maintain the present number of native labourers on the mines, especially in view of the shorter period, to recruit annually 70,000 natives. At present the mines annually recruit 50,000. The position is, however, made worse because each native, after completing his service must remain at home for six months before being recruited again. Because the position is now so much more difficult it is said it will be necessary to go further north than 22 degrees south latitude to recruit natives. My attention has been called to the fact that the position regarding miners’ phthisis is better and that there is no longer the former danger to the natives who come from the highlands of Rhodesia to work on the mines. On behalf of the mines in my constituency I want to ask the Government to give its attention to the matter and to appoint a commission to enquire whether it will not be possible to recruit natives north of the degree mentioned. Such recruiting may also be to the advantage of the miners provided it is laid down that the number of white miners shall also be proportionately increased. According to the figures given me it is not possible for the mines to recruit additional natives in the Union. I also want to ask the Government to see that the squatters on farms are better controlled so that the young natives on the company farms shall go away and be put to work. In that way the farmers will have more labour and after them the mines also. As for the natives in the north, I want to say that we see how the native territories have extended, become stronger and developed economically, and I want to ask the Government to be quick not to allow that those lands shall be occupied by the rest of the natives. I also wanted to speak about ringworm, but according to the conversation I have had with persons in authority, I understand that the matter is already receiving the attention of the Government. Now I want to plead that the Government, in the cases of natives who come from places north of degree 22 should particularly see that no more ringworm comes on the mines than there is already to-day, and that the necessary precautions are taken. Hon. members on both sides of the House know that ringworm is something that can remain in the system for two, three and five years. It is painful and deprives Europeans of all working capacity. As for Europeans, I therefore ask that ringworm be declared a vocational disease. Natives do not appear to be so sensitive to it because they already have it and they are not troubled with the consequences. The means of fighting it are much better to-day and it is possible to kill the worms with ordinary salt if, they are in the ground. In one’s body, however, they are dangerous, and there is no efficacious remedy as yet, as the medicine that there is, sometimes more dangerous to the constitution than the disease. The natives who come from Mozambique suffer more from ringworm than the local natives and the natives from Central Africa still more than the natives from Portuguese territory. I therefore want to ask the Government if it permits natives to be brought from north of degree 22 to take the necessary precautions for the proper examination and treatment of the natives and not to produce an additional danger to the European miners.

With regard to the industry on which our population depends, I would like to know whether the hon. member draws a distinction between young or old, male or female, in regard to the industry. Can you distinguish between them? You said: “Do we propose that a larger number of unfortunates should give service at 3s. to 7s. 6d. a day?” If you wish to make a contribution towards the solution of poverty you have to deal with it on very different lines from those of the Government. It is not a solution simply to absorb people who are on the brink of starvation, or just above starvation point, into the public or any other service for that simply leads them into paths of despair. The proper way to deal with the problem is to widen the basis of industry, or to create conditions which will make it profitable to employ all the unemployed and all these poor people who are just above the starvation limit. You cannot possibly do that by following up the policy which has been outlined by the Government—a policy which is an emergency one to cope with emergency conditions. I quite agree that these miserable wages are better than nothing, but we have to look in other directions for a solution. Therefore we are right in looking to the great industries and in particular to the great industry of the Rand. No tinkering with the problem will be a contribution towards this solution. I think the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. Potgieter) scarcely did himself justice. Did he suppose when he addressed his appeal to the House for consideration to be shown to the mines, that he was merely backing the capitalists or the Chamber of Mines? He may have thought so, but he certainly was not. In advancing his arguments he was following exactly the same course the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) and I had taken. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) challenged certain figures which the hon. member for Springs and I had given regarding the coal traffic along the Rand. He said that 1,560,000 tons of coal were the maximum quantity of coal supplied to the Rand mines. The hon. member comes from Boksburg, which is very largely dependent on the mining industry, and he ought to know that the mines are worked not directly by coal consumed on their own premises, but through the medium of electric power, which is produced not only by the mines themselves, but by the electric power companies.

Generated at Witbank and Vereeniging.

Has the hon. member never heard of Rosherville and Simmer Pan, where there are large and important power stations to which coal has to be carried for the generation of power essential for the working of the mines from Springs to Randfontein? The only two mines on the whole of the Rand which generate their own electrical power are the E.R.P.M. and the Randfontein Estates. Every other mine gets its power from one of the power companies. Yet the hon. member has, shall I say the audacity, to quote figures which refer only to the consumption of these two mines. How extraordinarily remote from the true facts are the speech and argument of the hon. member for Boksburg! Profits to the extent of £150,000 are derived by the Railway Department from the carriage of coal only for the Rand mines. Railway rates to the extent of about £800,000 are paid by the power companies and the gold mines.

Where do you get your figures from?

From public documents which are available to every single member of the House. I have no secret information obtained from the railways either by telephone or by any other method. My information is obtained from the reports of different mining companies, and the Railway Administration, and from comments on these reports by public men of standing. The actual rate of profit has never been acknowledged by the Railway Administration in the same table of figures, but as I am challenged upon this, I will give one illustration to show what profits have been acknowledged. The E.R.P.M. takes something like 300,000 tons of coal per annum, and the late general manager, Sir William Hoy, when he was challenged upon this subject, admitted that from this company the Railway Administration took £50,000 per annum profit. This company has had a long life, and it has only paid one miserable dividend to the shareholders. It is a company which employs a very large number of people, a large number of whites as well as natives, and upon the continued existence of the mine depends the livelihood of these men and their wives and families, and of all the merchants and other people who depend upon it. The ramifications, therefore, of the mining industry strike down to the very humblest individual in the country, and it is trifling with the questions, it is burking the issue to suggest that in dealing with the prosperity of the mining industry, or of an individual mine you are considering the interests of the shareholders or the directors acting on their behalf. It is nothing of the sort. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) represents constituents, not one of whom does not depend directly or indirectly on the mining industry, and they would not tolerate his support of anything which tended to shorten the lives of the mines or to restrict their expansion, and that is the policy which is at the root of the present basis on which railway rates have been laid down and carried out by the Minister. His budget in respect of railways is to a very large extent counted upon this, and I submit the time has come when this should be overhauled, and when a very great wrong should be put right. It is just as well to get a figure by which one can gauge the extent to which unfair differentiation in this respect is being carried out. The rate per truck mile for carrying coal over a 26 miles’ run upon the Rand was 7s. 6d. at an estimated cost of 8s. 7d. per train mile. You may see there that very roughly they are charging per truck mile at the cost per train mile less 1s. I submit that figure speaks for itself. It is an outrageous profit. The case is proved to the hilt that the Railway Administration is making an enormous profit deliberately and knowingly out of this coal traffic on the Witwatersrand, because they have come to the conclusion that the people who pay have to pay to get on with their business. That is a very great weight upon this industry upon which such a large number of people depend. Every person in Roodepoort, whether directly engaged in mining or not, is dependent upon the industry for his living. You are now, by these excessive coal rates, imposing an extra cost of between 3½d. and 4d. per ton on the whole of the output of the Rand. I was very glad to see that one member this afternoon recognized the importance of getting out of the ground every ton of ore which can be made to pay. I am very glad indeed to see this elementary truth has filtered down and soaked into Troyeville, and has been expressed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). A great many of us on the Rand have been hammering at this particular point, and trying to get Parliament really to recognize it. If they do so—I welcome the support of the hon. member for Troyville in getting it through—then one of the first things they must do is to tackle the overhead railway rates to which we have referred. The operations on the Witwatersrand have drawn people from all parts of South Africa, and this great trek from the country to the towns is particularly intensified on the Rand. These people go there to try to find work. Let them come and welcome, but if we are to provide work for them as we desire to do, the industry must be treated in a very different way from the present. This is only one direction in which action by the Government can ameliorate the present condition of affairs; but I do claim that now I have pointed out the true figures the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) should have the grace to get up and support the policy for which I have spoken.

You have not proved it yet.

I would like to put it to the House that the time has come for a frontal attack on the problem of poverty, and if you are to tackle that you must deal with the question of the cost of living. The burden on one particular industry may be removed, but an all-embracing problem is involved in getting at the cost of living and the factors that make it up and the problem of reducing this cost. The average family income upon which to base calculations may be taken from men who are in employment, not in the poorer straits of Government employment, but men fairly engaged in industry. The earnings of such men on the Witwatersrand are anything between £20 and £27 per month. For a married man with a family who has to budget on an income of that kind, even the smallest item of expenditure is of very great importance. Although, to most people, it may not be a matter of great importance whether you pay one penny more or less per lb. for sugar, or something extra for clothing or for condensed milk, to the man who has to budget on a fine sum like this it is a matter of the very greatest importance. I suppose the country is undoubtedly committed to a policy of protection. I face the facts, and I am not arguing against that at all, but what I do say is you have to examine very carefully indeed and judge the extent which the measures which you are taking, nominally, with a view to giving protection to your industries, and actually putting up the cost of living, are worth while, having regard to the hardships which are inflicted. The time will come when there may be a comprehensive enquiry into the cost of living, and the incidence of customs duties and railway rates as they bear on this great question. A reduction in the cost of living means also a reduction in the cost of conducting every single industry, and when you are able to effect that reduction, it is not like a measure to increase the customs duty or giving a bounty, which may help one and increase the cost to another; when you reduce the cost of living you are making a very definite contribution to broadening the basis of industry and taking a well-marked step towards securing employment, and of regulating a profitable industry, which we all hope is the means of securing employment and curing the poverty which has stricken South Africa.

A pity your party missed their chance.

If that is so, I suppose the hon. member will admit that there was a chance, and if that chance was not taken by my party it is still open, and let his party take that chance. If he will think over that he will not interrupt me again. This question of the cost of living is one on which I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways and Harbours will jointly take action. If it is investigated by a select committee or a commission, or by other means, it will get the cordial co-operation not only of everybody on this side of the House, but of everybody in South Africa. The question of labour supply is intimately bound up in this. I have nothing to say against what was said by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) in this respect. If he only followed up his logic, which he truncated and cut through, he will find that it will lead him the whole hog, and that he will logically cross over and come to this side of the House. I hope Ministers will find that there is an opportunity for an enquiry such as this, and I trust that the Minister of Railways and Harbours will take these figures of the railway rates into consideration, and see that that Small measure of justice is done to one of our greatest industries, which it so loudly demands.

I listened with great attention to the Opposition speakers to-day who criticise the civilized labour policy of the Government. We heard the remark the members on this side of the House are elected by non-tax-paying electors of the country, and that hon. members opposite are elected by the taxpayers. So far three hon. members opposite have risen and criticised the civilized labour policy of the Government. This proves to me that the three hon. gentlemen feel that they have electors who are civilized labourers, and, therefore, I feel called upon to say something about it. I am surprised to learn that hon. members who, during the South African party Government sat on the Government benches, get up and criticize the policy of the present Government because the position was much worse then than now. In the general manager of railway’s report of 16th February, 1924, I find this remark—

And then hon. members come and criticise the Government about civilized labourers. I represent a constituency where hundreds of the so-called white labourers live, and I want to say at once that the people are glad to have work, seeing they walked the streets unemployed under the South African party Government. They are working to-day, and, although they earn little, they are able to live. Under the South African party Government there were natives in their places. My experience at Bloemfontein is that when people are taken into the service young and are able to learn, there is a future before them. Young persons with ambition attend night classes to increase their knowledge, and they have prospects. In this connection I want to congratulate the Minister on the appointment of welfare officers. We found that the welfare officer in the Free State did everything in his power to help the workers on and to fit them for promotion. There are hundreds of these young people who began at the lowest rung, and are to-day drawing higher wages and occupying a better position. I must admit that people who are getting on in years and can no longer go to school to pass Standard VI, have not much prospect in life. The persons, however, who are young and vigorous can work themselves up, and the day will come when all the young people now in the service will occupy a good position if they do their best. The constituency, Bloemfontein (South), just like other constituencies, has trouble with housing, but the town council of Bloemfontein has assisted the people. Other constituencies and municipalities have possibly not used the privileges which they have. We cannot expect that the Railway Department should give all the people houses, and as regards such people as live within the borders of a municipality, it is expected, surely, that the municipality shall do something to assist the people in housing. There is one point which is felt very strongly in Bloemfontein. We have there about 20 to 30 old people of 60 to 70 years of age, who are practically employed through charity. They receive 3s. from the municipality, 1s. from the Labour Department, and 1s. from the provincial administration. Those people, therefore, are working at 5s. a day, and they work hard for the money. Often they have to walk far to their work. Once they received £2 10s. a month old age pension. Now, however, it has been found that they can still get something for the work they do. The 5s. a day is lost when they go sick, or if, as the result of rain, they cannot work, and now the old age pension is deducted from what they earn. I want to ask the Minister if he does not see his way clear to give that class of person the £2 10s. They are old, worn-out people. In Bloemfontein house rent is very high, £4 or £5 a house, and if they are to pay these high amounts it goes without saying that they cannot live properly at 5s. a day. If they get the £2 10s. in addition they can manage to make a living. Reproaches have been made from the opposite side against the Government for sending ambassadors overseas. I am still thinking of how the South African party accused the Nationalist party of being so narrow in their attitude that they could not take a broader view with regard to other countries. It has struck me that now the Government comes and wants to send trade commissioners overseas, but the South African party protest against it. Who now has the narrow view? The South African party or the Government? This shows again that the Opposition have that broad view only with regard to Imperial matters. As for my constituency, my experience is that with regard to white labour policy, it has done excellent work, and I hope the Government will further maintain the balance between capital and labour. We know that capital can be a great blessing to a country, but also a great curse. If the Government continues to maintain the balance we can expect capital to be a great blessing. I, therefore, hope that the Government, during its second five years of office, will protect labour against capital.

I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that we must all be pleased that we have such a lot of money to spend in the Union, but I would point out to him that means that each European in the Union has paid £2 too much in taxation. We have one and a half million people, and we have a £3,000,000 surplus. I regret that we have not had a reduction for the poor man, such as a reduction of taxation on cotton blankets which cannot be made in this country. We might have done away with that burden. The surplus, however, shows that South Africa is advancing very fast both in regard to its exports and imports. If I had my way there are two subjects I would like to see removed from the party political arena—agriculture and harbours. There is no need whatever for these to come under the party whip. In Port Elizabeth we have an agricultural society which is something like sixty-five years old, and we have endeavoured at all times to get a member of the Government to come around to the opening of the show. We have been a little bit unfortunate since the present Government came into office, the reason being partly that Parliament met about the time the show was held; but last year we were very fortunate in having our Prime Minister at Port Elizabeth. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for carrying out his promise that he would attend the opening of the show at Port Elizabeth unless Government business prevented him from doing so. The Prime Minister had his eyes opened, I think, during his visit. He gave us some reminiscences one evening in Port Elizabeth, and told us of his previous experiences there, which he said were not too comfortable; but he was good enough to say that he never realized that Port Elizabeth was such a busy place. He was most interested in the manufacturing activity in the town, and he felt that we had been a little neglected in the past. But he made no promises. We have heard the Minister of Railways say that he made no promises in East London. The Prime Minister made none at Port Elizabeth, but he said that he had never imagined that there was such an enormous amount of manufacturing, and such a large number of people employed in the manufactures of Port Elizabeth. I think that is a great deal for him to admit, because we have had the feeling at Port Elizabeth that we have been neglected by the Ministers of the Crown.

You were represented by a Minister of the Crown under the Smuts Government.

I have nothing to do with that. Port Elizabeth appreciated the visit of the Prime Minister very much, and I saw later that in one of his electioneering tours he mentioned the large number of people who are employed at Port Elizabeth. I want to speak on the question of harbours. Before Union our harbours were managed by harbour boards, and we had to pay our own way, and the consequence was that Port Elizabeth had the lowest charges of any in the Cape. At Union the wise men of the East knew what was coming and the men of Natal put their harbour into shape. See the amount of work which has been done there to their credit. After Union there was a craze for uniformity and Port Elizabeth had to come into line and pay the same charges as other harbours. Uniformity of charges, not uniformity of conditions. In addition to the same charges there is an additional one of one-third per ton for lighterage. Port Elizabeth is the Cinderella of the Union ports and the time has now come to do something for the harbour which has been neglected by the Government In 1922 I had the honour of being present when the first block of the breakwater was being laid. The total length of the wall was to be 8,500 feet. Now, notwithstanding the years which has passed, the total length completed is only 3,400 feet and it will be ten to twelve years before it is completed. We were told by an hon. member in the House that we were short of lighters at Port Elizabeth, but we have sufficient lighters to block the shore work. I would like to point out to the Government that in 1925 the Government were good enough to appoint the Vander Horst Commission and I do want to say that when the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) was good enough to say that the three gentlemen who were appointed by the Minister of Railways thought a very strong case would have to be put before they could recommend expenditure on this harbour, they, after exhaustive enquiry, considered this harbour essential owing to the increasing trade. They go a little further and they point out that they took evidence from 138 witnesses in totally different centres. They were mostly of the farming community. In Port Elizabeth they had witnesses from Uitenhage and the surrounding country. It is rather difficult in an empty House to go through this report. I would ask hon. members to get a copy of the report and to study it for themselves, and take the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with its contents. Members of Parliament do not go around the country enough and I venture to say that there are many members of this House who have not seen the five harbours of this country. The report refers to a 10 per cent. increase. At that time the tonnage was 550,000 tons in 12 months, on the conditions of that report we were required to show that we are handling 610,000 tons. This year, three and a half years after, we have already reached 800,000 tons. A little while ago the system manager of the South African railways said the work of the port had increased during the last ten years three-fold showing very clearly the progress which has been made. I would like to quote the statement of the Government showing the revenue and expenditure for the year ending 1930. This is the Government’s own document. The position is as follows: Cape Town harbour shows a revenue of £381,000, an expenditure of £259,000, a difference of £122,000. That is the profit. Natal a revenue of £716,000, an expenditure of £560,000, profit of £157,000; East London, £204,000, expenditure of £156,000, profit £48,000; Algoa Bay a revenue of £320,000, expenditure £170,000, a profit of £150,000, only £7,000 less than your best port. I think these figures speak for themselves and justify our claim to the Van der Horst report being carried out. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways whether it was his intention to carry out the report further. I would like to ask him why after three and a half years the matter is still delayed. I understand the Railway Board has some say in this matter and, therefore, we should be glad if the members of the board would visit us a little oftener. During the last three and a half years we have seen them only four times, and then only for brief periods. Unfortunately Port Elizabeth has not sufficient storage accommodation, but if the new scheme recommended in the report is carried out, this difficulty will be obviated. What has happened at Congella would be repeated at Port Elizabeth, for the carrying out of the scheme would make available a considerable area of valuable land, the lease or sale of which would help to pay for the expenditure involved. Thousands of fruit trees have been planted in the district around Port Elizabeth, and it will be necessary to provide pre-cooling arrangements. In one district alone 200,000 deciduous fruit trees have been planted during the last two or three years. We have also a large export trade in pineapples. Deciduous fruit must be pre-cooled, and we have four lighters capable of carrying 250 tons each of pre-cooled fruit. As 17 cases of citrus go to the ton it is obvious that a great quantity of this fruit cannot be pre-cooled. Last season a large quantity of fruit was sent to Cape Town from the Sundays River which is less than 50 miles from Port Elizabeth, and the farmers were obliged to pay 24s. a ton for the conveyance of the fruit to Cape Town against 6s. a ton to Port Elizabeth. We have a narrow gauge line which conveys a large quantity of fruit to Port Elizabeth; over. 100,000 cases from the Gamtoos Valley alone. If it is thought necessary to forward this fruit to Cape Town for shipment overseas there must be transhipment at Port Elizabeth the resulting damage to the fruit will nullify the energy displayed and the capital invested by the growers. The Minister of Railways has visited our port and has taken the trouble to enquire into these matters, for which we are very grateful. The last occasion he visited us was a week or ten days before the election, when he tried to induce the electors of Uitenhage to believe that they would be better served by a gentleman who understood the inside of a church than by a gentleman who knows thoroughly the inside of the railway workshop. However, we now have as a representative of Uitenhage a very able gentleman who notwithstanding the Minister’s opinion will be very useful to the Minister. We at Port Elizabeth do not ask for favours, but for justice, which unfortunately has been very long delayed; we ask that the subject be dealt with apart from party considerations, and that arrangements be made at all the ports for the increased volume of traffic. Our hinterland is the southern portion of the Free State and the country extending via Kimberley to Bulawayo and the Belgian Congo. For their own sakes, the farmers of the Free State should support us and ask that better port facilities be provided at Algoa Bay.

I should like to call attention to the way the land bank operates. I proceed from the point of view that business is business, that it is not a favour for the land bank to lend farmers money, but that it is pure business for the benefit of both parties. In this respect I expect that the land bank will, in all respects, compete with other institutions of that kind. In one respect the land bank competes very well with other similar institutions. It is in the conditions which the land bank grants. It gives, as one condition, a fixed period of twenty years, and that the money can be repaid at any time, and these are conditions which no other institution can offer. In that respect the land bank is excellent for the farmer, but when we come to the procedure of obtaining money from the land bank, then I fear it cannot compete with the other institutions. For the enlightenment of hon. members who have not had much to do with the matter I want to compare the procedure of various companies with that of the land bank. If we take the case of a private company then we see the matter is very simple. The applicant makes an application, and hands it over to a valuator appointed by the master for estate purposes, and if he knows the property it is not necessary for him to go out specially to value the ground. He makes a valuation according to his knowledge, hands the form to the applicant, who passes it on to the company. In ordinary circumstances he can have a reply within five days, because the company takes the valuation of the appraiser, compares it with the purchase price, and then agrees to advance about 50 per cent. of the purchase price, or of the valuation, at 6 per cent. In the case of the land bank the procedure is very complicated. The applicant fills in the application form and hands it to the magistrate, who posts it to the land bank valuator, who usually lives on the countryside. It has already happened that the valuator was absent or sick when the form arrived. If he is absent it waits until his return, and if he is sick it must also wait until he is able to complete it and return it. Because even if the land bank valuator knows the ground it is not possible for him to answer all the questions asked unless he has specially gone out to see the ground. He must go there, and then, of course, his travelling expenses are paid. Even if he knows the ground he does not exactly know how much irrigated land there is, how much arable land and precisely how many buildings there are on the property. He knows he does not know, e.g., how many horses can be stabled. He goes out, notes the details, comes back, makes the valuation and posts it to the magistrate. The latter fills in another form and posts it to the local board, say in Bloemfontein. These boards sit once or twice a month, and if the form arrives just after a meeting, it must wait until the next meeting, say fourteen days. After the form has been considered by the local board a report is prepared, and the form is sent to the central board. I do not know how often the central board meets, but assuming that the form comes up at its next sitting then, and then only is it possible for the applicant to learn whether his application has been granted. From my own experience I may say that it is usually from a month to six weeks before the applicant gets a definite reply. I say this prevents many farmers from applying to the land bank, which surely is there for the farmers’ benefit. If the farmer has to pay the purchase price on a certain day it is dangerous for him to apply. He does not want to start months before the time, because one of the conditions is that a month after he has received notice of the granting of the loan he must enable the land bank to put the necessary documents through. It is dangerous to start six weeks before the time, because he does not know if, at the last moment, he may possibly be informed that he cannot have the money. I know that the procedure of the land bank will be defended on the ground that since its establishment it has never yet lost a penny in capital or interest, but in connection with that I want to say that is nothing peculiar. A few days ago I was talking to the secretary of one of the big investment companies in Cape Town, which has invested more than £1,000,000 in farm property in the Free State, and he assured me that his company during the twenty years they have been doing business in the Free State, have also not yet lost a penny in capital or interest. It is one of the companies which tells an applicant within five days whether he can have the money or not. It is the desire of all of us that the land hank should he used by the farmers as much as possible, because the farmers who borrow money there are safe. As matters stand to-day, however, it is difficult to encourage the farmers to borrow money from the land bank. If the farmer already owns unmortgaged property, and if he wants to borrow money to make improvements—to build a dam or a house—then the delay does not make much difference. Then it is safe to recommend a farmer to go to the land bank, but not in other cases. I see the Minister of Lands here, and want very earnestly, though humbly, to appeal to him in connection with applications under Section 11 of the Land Settlement Act. The department recommend that options of at least three months should be obtained by the applicant. I just want to explain that this is impossible in the case of many districts in the Northern Free State, because strangely enough we have a season for the sale of land. It lasts from March to June, about four months. The reason is that the farmer in March can look at his harvest, more or less, and make an estimate as to how much he will make, and whether he can buy or not. Lessors who have never yet possessed ground and can make a few hundred pounds out of their harvest can then buy ground if, under the Land Settlement Act, they can get assistance. Owners of farms who want to sell, can also see how matters stand. After June, however, the season is at an end. The owner of a small farm cannot sell on account of the uncertainty whether he will he able to buy another farm, because in September the year begins for the grain farmers, and we find that all the land which is leased in my district is leased to be taken possession of in September. As the season lasts three or four months it is no use asking a farmer for an option for a period of three months, because if in the result the land is not bought the farmer will be stuck and it will result in the loss of a year. The result is that they refuse to give options, and people have a lot of trouble about it. May I ask the Minister to seriously consider to make the option one month instead of three months. I know the Minister is very busy, and that it is almost impossible, but perhaps the suggestion will assist the Minister that a local office should be established in Bloemfontein for dealing with the applications. This s not a new thing, because in Natal there already is such an office, and the advantages connected with it are very great. In the first place Natal has its own office with a senior official and a full staff. The Free State only has a secretary to the local board. In Natal the application is made directly to Pietermaritzburg. The office there deals with it, and send it to Pretoria, or to Cape Town, if the Minister is there, and then the Minister has merely to approve or disapprove. In the Free State, however, application must be made to Pretoria. The Pretoria office sends it to the Bloemfontein board. The board deals with it, but does not send it to the Minister, but back to Pretoria, and if the Minister is in Cape Town the office sends it to Cape Town. In Natal there are only two stages: in the Free State four. Another benefit to Natal is the fact that the Natal matters are disposed of in a small office, while the applications from the Free State are mixed up with those from the Transvaal and the Cape, which takes much longer. A further benefit is that the local office in Natal has the files at its disposal. In the Free State the applications have to go to Pretoria, which in turn has to get its information from the Free State. So that matters have often to be postponed to the next meeting. My old uncle always used to say “If a man is go-ahead help him to go ahead, but if he is going backwards, help him backward.” I do not say that Natal wants to go backward in farming matters, but I say that the Free State has shown that it is going ahead. What are the figures for the last five years with reference to the taxable income of the farmers? In Natal the amount was £1,816,000 while in the Free State it was not less than £8,229,000. I am rounding off the figures to thousands of pounds. The Free State amount is therefore four and a half times as large as that of Natal, and I think in these circumstances, my request deserves serious consideration. If the Minister of Lands says that he has no money then I hope that the Minister of Finance will co-operate with him, and assist the Free State to get that office.

On the motion of Mr. Deane, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.