I move—

I may state that during the recess a deputation from the City Council of Cape Town approached me in Pretoria, and saw me in regard to the necessity of having this land in their possession. I promised them that I would go into the matter and see whether that could be done. The necessity for this Bill arises from the fact that the City Council of Cape Town contemplates a very comprehensive beach improvement scheme at Muizenberg. The council intends spending an amount of nearly £200,000 for the improvement of the place, and I have no doubt that when the works are carried out the amenities of Muizenberg will be very considerably increased, and that this resort will offer still greater attractions to people from up country than is the case at present. Naturally, the council is diffident about spending so large an amount of money unless it can secure title to the land to be vested in it, and that is the reason why they asked me to bring forward this Bill. The land to be vested is between high and low water mark, as defined in a judgment of the Supreme Court. This land cannot be alienated merely by a resolution of both House of Parliament, because I am informed that the foreshore, that is the land between low and high water mark, is considered to be the property of the State, and can only be alienated by special Act of Parliament. That is the reason why I have introduced this Bill. The land is between low water mark and high water mark. There is a precedent for this Bill in Natal in 1907, when a small Act was passed vesting land of the same description in the corporation of the City of Durban for similar improvements. If hon. members will look at the Bill they will see that I have preserved in Clause 2. that any rights which may have existed hitherto are preserved, the only difference being that when such rights are infringed action will concern the council instead of the State. I have also preserved the right of resumption. That may be necessary in the future; one never knows what may happen; the Government may require land, and that could be resumed. I do not suppose hon. members have seen the plans, but they have been shown to me, and I am fully assured that the scheme will greatly improve Muizenberg. We all know that Muizenberg, if not already, is fast becoming the first seaside resort of the Union, Durban of course, excepted. If this goes through I feel quite confident that if it is not the first it will certainly be the second. There is no doubt about that. The land to be vested is from the steps down to the beach near the railway station for about three miles to near the lime kilns. I had been told there were certain objections, and I saw the gentlemen interested in the matter, and those who objected, after the matter had been explained to them, withdrew their objections, so to-day there is no objection from residents of Muizenberg.

Although I do not reside in this part of the Union, I desire to support the second reading of this Bill, because I regard Muizenberg beach as being a national asset. The Minister has stated that the probabilities are that Muizenberg will develop in the course of time into a competitor with the Durban beach, and for my own part I do not see why that should not happen, because the natural amenities of Muizenberg are as great as at Durban. I rose just to point out to the Minister what appears to me to be somewhat of a difficulty that has not been anticipated in this Bill. The Bill is based very largely on the measure which was passed in Natal in 1907. The Durban municipality found by experience that the title they got under this Act was not a good one. That is the title was so uncertain as to the powers of licence or selling that they had to come to Parliament again for increased powers. I notice under Clause 2 of the Bill that the Governor-General may grant powers to the municipality to make grants of land; and certain restrictions are imposed under section 2. I would like to point out to the Minister that this uncertainty might interfere with their raising capital. The municipality may have some difficulty in granting tenure of licence or sale, as the municipality of Durban found under their act. The Governor-General “may grant” this land. I think if you are going to give the municipality these powers it should be done now. I merely rose to express my approbation of what is proposed to be done, and to point out to the Minister the difficulty which our municipality found and which was remedied by a subsequent Act in 1908.

I think residents of Cape Town should be grateful to the Minister and to the Government for their efforts to meet a difficulty which has existed for a number of years. It is clear that the Government, by its kind interest in this Bill is anxious to meet the citizens in their desire to improve the amenities of their premier seaside resort. It is also most gratifying that a representative of Durban should recognize that Cape Town is entitled to the same facilities that were granted to Durban The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) has raised a point with regard to the sufficiency of the title proposed by the Bill, and that is a point which will, no doubt, receive due consideration; but it seems to me unnecessary to move an amendment in this Bill to provide for it, because in this province we have what they do not possesses in Natal, and that is an Ordinance which clearly regulates the circumstances under which land can be alienated by a municipal council, and provides a variety of safeguards against any injudicious and improper alienation. The citizens of Cape Town will, I feel sure, feel grateful for what the Minister has done to assist them in this particular matter.

I am interested in this little Bill as a resident of Muizenberg, and I would like to take this opportunity to express recognition to the Minister on behalf of myself and the other residents there, of the consideration he gave to their views before proceeding with this Bill. Personally, I prefer the beach at Muizenberg in its unimproved state; I do not regard this as an improvement at all. But I recognize that in these times you have to cater for the crowd, and the crowd is going to ask for all sorts of things that do not appeal to me particularly. Therefore I bow to the inevitable. At the present time, in the unimproved condition of the beach-, it is used to a considerable extent by fishermen, who pull up their boats there. I should like to know whether anything has been done towards preserving their rights or giving them an alternative place to pursue their calling, which it will be agreed is a very useful one.

I only wish to add my voice to those who have commended the action of the Minister in introducing this Bill. I think it fulfils a long standing desire of the people of Muizenberg, and I think they are very much in earnest in trying to improve their amenities, and this will help them very much. I do not think any great difficulties are likely to arise. The requirements of the residents have been met. As the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter), has pointed out, I do not think any difficulty is likely to arise in regard to the disposal of the lands which will now be vested in the municipality. In regard to the fishermen, that I suppose will be met by their going a little further down the beach, but that only serves to emphasize the necessity which has been urged more than once this session of doing something to provide proper facilities for fishing in the Cape province. I entirely agree with those who have commended the action of the Minister.

I wish to state that the municipal council have informed me that they will keep a certain space, as at present, where people can land fish. That is why I put in Clause 2. If fishermen have any rights, and they are interfered with, they will have the same action against the council as they would have against the Government.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedules and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

We have agreed to certain duties on the necessaries of life, like butterine, cheese, cocoa, chocolate, quaker oats, bacon, ham, condensed milk, and also on certain farming requisites. Now we come to consider certain increases in building materials. It seems we are going to have increases all round. We have had increases in the cost of living and now there is going to be an increase in the cost of building. It is proposed to increase asbestos sheets from 2 per cent. with a 3 per cent. rebate to 25 per cent. also plain sheet glass from 20 per cent. to 7s. per 100 square feet, an increase of about 50 per cent.; varnishes from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a gallon, joinery, window frames, doors etc., for building, from 20 to 25 per cent., and furniture from 17 to 20 per cent. It will be observed, from item 171, on page 13, that the duty on this plain clear sheet glass, exceeding 16 ounces per square foot, has been raised from 20 per cent. with 3 per cent. rebate to 7s. per 100 square feet. As far as I can ascertain, this glass would cost 12s. 3d. per 100 square feet in England; so that there is an increase of over 50 per cent. It pretty well increases the landing charges from 40 per cent. to 90 per cent. As far as I know there is no factory producing glass in South Africa, and the attempt made some years ago to make glass bottles here ended disastrously. The sole result of this increased duty will be to send up the cost of building, as if that were not dear enough already, and as if we were not already suffering from a shortage of houses.

Half-a-crown a house.

More than that, and it is the accumulation of all these things that tell. Then, asbestos has been increased from one to 25 per cent.

I am talking of glass only.

All these increases are entirely uncalled for.

The increases are really not very serious. In the case of glass, a four-roomed cottage with six double casement-windows, using glass to the extent of 60 square feet, under the original proposal the increase would be only 3s., but since then the board has considerably reduced the duty for cheaper glass. This is one of the items in which we were anxious to give increased British preference, the British factories being seriously handicapped by foreign factories where the men work seven days a week. The increase will not affect the cost of building at all.

In Class 202 the duty on oils, vegetable or animal, is 20 per cent., but under Class 343, castor-oil and whale oil, which are to be used for the manufacture of dips, disinfectants, and insecticides, will be allowed to come in free. In Class 363, certain substances used by the tanning industry will also come in free; the tanning industry uses the same class of oil as the dip industry, but it will have to pay duty on it. When oils are brought in for re-sale they have to pay the ordinary duty. Why should oil, which comes in free when used by the dip industry, have to pay duty when it is imported for the use of a taning factory? Why is one particular industry favoured and another not?

Under Class 15—materials for industrial purposes—we deal with all the industries as they make application to us, and the matters are investigated by the Board of Trade. We admit free such materials that the manufacturers can make a case out for use in their industries. We have met the tanning industry, but I do not know whether they have made representations in regard to castor-oil. My information is that castor-oil is admitted free for the tanning industry.

We have had to pay on the importation of it.

I am informed that castor-oil will be admitted free for the tanning industry.

Will a rebate be given for the duty that has already been paid on castor-oil for the tanning industry?

If it has been paid in mistake, certainly.

Classes VI and VII, put and agreed to.

On Class VIII,

In Item 228, distilled glycerine, is to come in at 25 per cent., the same duty as before, except that the rebate is taken away, but under Item 345—

It is used for explosives.

Exactly, and I am going to show an anomaly. The manufacture of explosives is a big concern, and consequently it is favoured by the hon. members on the Labour benches. People like Kynochs will import their distilled glycerine in bulk, free, but manufacturing chemists and tobacco factories will have to pay duty on it, although they import the glycerine in exactly the same containers as do the explosives people. If articles come in free for the manufacture of dynamite why cannot they be free for tobacco manufacturers?

It is only the distilled, or refined, glycerine that comes in free.

As far as my information gees there is no difference. Surely, you don’t want to differentiate?

Dyes will pay a duty of 20 per cent., but if they are used for manufacturing purposes they will come in free. I have already pointed out the difficulty of deciding whether dyes are to be used for new goods or for re-dying goods. The Minister will realize how difficult it will be to control the tariff when there are two different duties on the same article. It is much better to have for one article one duty. I suggest to him, in order to get over the difficulty, that he should divide it in this way. Dyes imported in containers of less than 5 lbs. of a colour to pay the duty of 20 per cent., and those imported in containers of 5 lbs. and over should be free. Then automatically the man doing the manufacturing business gets the stuff free. The other item is for small dyes coming in for private use. If he had a tariff clearly defined like that, there could be no doubt as to what duty there would be on the dye. As I pointed out on a previous occasion according to the arrangement to-day, if the dyer wants the stuff to come in on the free list he must keep two stocks of dye, one for new goods and one for the other goods. He must also see the dyer makes no mistake. If he has a pot of black dye for ostrich feathers he must see that nothing else is put in otherwise he infringes the Customs Act. Dyes not being toilet preparations imported in less than 5 lb. containers will pay 20 per cent., and for 5 lbs. and over they would come in free. I hope I have succeeded in persuading the Minister that is a much sounder division than the one suggested in the tariff.

I am afraid that 5 lbs is too large in any case. The department does not find any difficulty in this. We have had no difficulty in controlling it. I am not certain what affect the suggestion of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) would have. With regard to the point of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) respecting glycerine for the tobacco industry, that matter is being investigated by the board. We investigate all cases where particular industries come and make out a case if they want an article free. In regard to explosives they have established their case, but for tobacco it has not been established. Under a section of the Customs Bill the hon. member will know that the Minister, when Parliament is not sitting, is entitled to admit free articles required for manufacturing purposes.

With regard to 246 what is the meaning of ad valorem plus suspended duty on all dips. There must be a reason why this is not free.

These dips will be admitted free but there are industries in the Union that still manufacture these and if the board is satisfied a case is made out that the industry wants protection, it will be open to us to impose such a duty. We are not satisfied that they are at present entitled to protection. When they make out a case it will be open to the Government to give them a duty.

The Minister says the department has no difficulty of deciding what duty is leviable. I agree, they have not found any difficulty because they have always demanded the duty.

I dealt with the general principle of articles admitted free, for manufacturing purposes, for particular industries. I did not refer to dyes particularly.

With regard to the weight of 5 lbs. I suggested. That was to protect the department as far as dyes were concerned which were not used for manufacturing purposes. As far as the trader is concerned they would rather have 2 lbs. or 3 lbs. I ask the Minister to consider that.

We shall consider it. I don’t know what the effect of this will be.

Last year you imported £12,000 sterling, and the total duty was £2,400. It is, therefore, not a big item, but it causes a great deal of ill-feeling. I would like to refer to the duties mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), viz., the suspended duties on sprays. The Minister says the suspended duty is being held over until some manufacturer is prepared to produce a good article at a reasonable price. I point out the difficulty of the importer of any commodity when there is a suspended duty on it. He must keep the stock low because he is not to know when the tariff is coming on. Stocks will be kept low, and if there is a demand the farmer will not be able to procure these sprays. The merchants will keep the stock as low as possible from the fear that they will be faced with this suspended duty. I urge upon the Minister to reconsider this question of suspended duty. It is a most unsatisfactory form of levying any tariff.

I should like to know why sulphate of iron, which is very much used by the farmers is not excluded under item 246.

It will fall under the general tariff, which has not been specially named.

I would like to correct the statement of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) with regard to glycerine. The Somerset West factory imports crude glycerine, and it is refined at the works. If the chemists are anxious to get refined glycerine they can buy it from the factory. I think it is only fair that glycerine used in the manufacture of dynamite should be admitted free.

With reference to this duty on sheep dips, I, as a farmer, would object to pay more for my dip in the event of the Board of Trade deciding that a certain local manufacture is to be protected. Are they to be the experts to decide whether a locally manufactured dip is a satisfactory one? I would have thought that would be a matter for special experts or for the farmers to decide.

They will have the help of special experts.

In regard to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), if he refers to item 345 on page 27 he will find “distilled glycerine in bulk,” free. It says nothing about crude glycerine, but speaks merely of “distilled glycerine in bulk.” Why should we confine the benefit of the free importation of that article to one industry?

I wish to warn the Minister against putting on a duty on insecticides, dips, etc. You are taking an entirely different attitude from what has been taken in the past. In the past these articles have been allowed to come into the country free. Now we are at once threatened that a duty may be put on at any time, and I would join the hon. member for Newlands, Mr. Stuttaford, in pointing out that this may prevent merchants from ordering the necessary supplies. We do not know when the duty may be clapped on, and merchants will be very careful in ordering consignments, because when the stuff comes here they may find, perhaps, that a duty has been imposed.

Parliament may clap on a duty at any time.

†Mr. HEATLIE. Yes, but you know when that comes. In any case, I think the principle is wrong that your primary industries should be saddled with a duty on stuffs that they require for combating pests and diseases. A little while ago we passed am Act for the compulsory destruction of pests in orchards. Here, to-day, we are going to impose a duty on the requisites for that purpose. I think it is quite wrong, and I am not at all satisfied with the proposed suspended duty, because I consider that in no case should you have a duty on these articles.

I would like, again—

I must point out to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that he has already spoken twice.

I feel bound to support the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heathe) in protesting against this suspended duty which will hang over the farmers in connection with dips. During the last compulsory dipping there was a shortage of dip at one period, and if the merchants who import dips have a suspended duty hanging over their heads, it is possible that at some future period there may not be sufficient dip in the country to meet our requirements. I appeal to the Minister to strike out this suspended duty of 10 per cent. on dips, and I therefore move—

I don’t want to discuss the principle of the suspended duty. I think the House has approved of the principle on many occasions as a means of helping industries, but the hon. member has raised the question of uncertainty, and that it will raise difficulties as far as indenting is concerned, that the suspended duty will be a sword of Damocles over the heads of the merchants. I am considering the point as to whether we could not provide in the Bill that before the suspended duty can be imposed a certain period shall be given. The hon. member will see that it will be impossible to do that in cases where you have to impose a tax for revenue purposes, but in a case where you want to protect an industry it is perhaps not unreasonable to say that the merchants shall have some notice before this duty is put on. That we are considering.

What length of time?

Probably two or three months. We are considering it. We do not want to create any hardship. I think there is something to be said from the point of view that you should give your merchants an opportunity, perhaps, of disposing of the stocks they nave in hand.

I am pleased to hear the statement of the Minister that in regard to the suspended duties he win give some notice before they are imposed. But I must say that I am entirely against the principle of putting a duty on dips and insecticides, things which are required by your agriculturist. In no case ought to have a duty on them. We are already giving a bounty on fertilizers manufactured here, because you want your fertilizers to come in free, but, on the other hand, you are going to plank on a duty at some time or other of 10 per cent. on requirements of your primary producers. That is a thing we ought to resist to the uttermost.

I think my hon. friend the Minister should not be so cast iron about this. After all, it is only a small thing, and it won’t make any considerable difference as regards the amount of revenue.

I wish to point out that these suspended duties, of course, can only be imposed after the board has gone into the question, and recommended that they should be brought into force where you have an item which is intended for the protection of an industry. Where a case is made out that a South African Industry is producing an article which is satisfactory as regards quality and price, why should not the protection be given?

Is it likely he is ever going to be in a position to place a duty on these fertilizers?

There are no fertilizers here.

No, that is right, but is it likely he is ever going to put a duty on things of this kind? My hon. friend would be perfectly right in taking away this suspended duty. He would not lose a sixpence by it

It would not be likely to be imposed.

Well, take it off; don’t be so cast-iron.

I should like to thank the Minister for what he said in regard to the notice, because that is a great improvement. As regards the suspended duty suggested on dips and sprays and so on, I would like to point out to farming members that the whole of the duty when it is put on will be paid by the farmers. A farmer will get exactly the same for his produce whether he has to pay the extra 10 per cent. on his sprays or not; and in the same way he will not get a penny more for his sheep or his cattle whether he pays the 10 per cent. more for his dips or not. Every farthing of it will come out of the farmers. If they want to do so, it is well they should contribute to the revenue of the country but they should be allowed to do it with their eyes open. I quite agree with the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that the suspended duty should be removed. The present Minister of Finance, the last Minister of Finance and the future Minister of Finance will never have the courage to put on this 10 per cent. against the farmers. Why not take away a source of grievance?

I do hope the Minister will see his way to accept the removal of the suspended duties on these dips, because we wish to affirm the principle and policy of free importation of all these requirements of our farmers. I do not see why, if the Board of Trade in their vast wisdom and knowledge decide that a certain dip or spray is a good one, the farmer should have to pay a duty on that particular article.

I mentioned yesterday that in the tariff the babies were being specially favoured. It is the same here. I see the duty on infant shoes has been reduced from 17 to 12 per cent. On the other hand boots and shoes are being put up from 27 to 30 per cent. Rubber-hose has been very much increased—from the free list to a heavy duty to 2¼d., 1½d., 3d.. l½d. and 3d. per lb. This is all for the benefit of one factory in South Africa. I wanted to point out here, under leather, that the Minister has kept the ad valorem duty 20 per cent., and has added on other leather 6d. per lb. Why is that? That is under item 256 (b), “Leather in the piece (b) other.” Then in regard to Item 263, “Boxes, wooden,” one has no fault to find there, as they are free; but I want to move an amendment to bring in the boxes which are used in which to pack fish. I have a letter from some fish-curers and exporters, in which they say that they manufacture filleted fish for the Union and for export, and that the boxes are imported. In April they received a shipment of boxes on which 20 per cent, was levied. They fail to see why the farming community should get preferential treatment while other manufacturers are burdened with a heavy duty.

Item No, 263 comes under Class X.

Yes. Then I confine myself to moving the reduction of 6d. a lb. on leather, and leave the late as before, 20 per cent. I move—

In regard to Item 256, my attention has been drawn by a bookbinding firm in Port Elizabeth, to the fact that leather of the class known as roans, which they import for bookbinding, is being classed by the Customs officials under Item 256 instead of 356 (3), which is free, as it is for bookbinding. This firm imports roan leather for bookbinding, and the Customs officials insist on classing it under Item 256, so that they have to pay a heavy duty on it. I should be glad if the Minister would kindly enquire into this matter.

It would only come in free if imported for the special purpose.

I am informed that the officials were given the assurance that the roan leather was imported solely for bookbinding; but they arbitrarily decided that it should pay duty.

In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I wish to say that here, of course, you have the difficult matter of the conflict of interests between the boot-makers and the tanners. The present recommendations in the tariff are the result of a compromise between the boot-makers and the tanners. The board heard representations from both parties, and came to the conclusion that the tanners had made out a case for protecting sole-leather, which is coming in in increasing quantities, and in order to protect the tanning industry they got this alternative rate of 6d. a lb. On the other hand, the boot-makers got in free lining-leathers. Some of the tanners are very dissatisfied now that the lining-leathers are not protected.

They cannot make them here.

I know it is alleged that the leathers made here are not satisfactory, and that is why the concession has to be given to the boot-makers. The tanners say that this is not quite so. The board has come to this compromise to protect the tanning industry by giving them these alternative duties to protect them against the increasing importation of English sole leather, but to admit lining leathers free of duty. The board has come to the conclusion that this protection is required by the tanners.

I say quite deliberately that the tanners do not require this protection.

They don’t say so. The hon. member will be an exception.

I can tell you of other tanners who are also doing well. You will always get misrepresentations. I should have thought my hon. friend had become accustomed to them by now.

I have. They don’t all go through.

A good many have gone through.

We must encourage not only the manufacture of ordinary leathers, but lining leathers as well. I believe that representations had been laid before the Minister, proving that the tanners are able to manufacture all the leather linings we require. If the Minister does not think we can manufacture the better grades, let him agree to admit free of duty all lining leather costing over 1s. per square foot. I believe in protection for all industries. I have visited the houses of workmen employed in these industries in England. Belgium, Holland and Germany and I can honestly state that we do need protection against the products of those countries. A boot of uniform make which cost 12s. 5d. to manufacture in South Africa in 1914 would have been manufactured in the countries mentioned at the following prices: China, 6s.; India and Japan, 6s. 4d.; Italy, 7s. 2d.; Austria, 8s. 3d.; Germany. 8s. 10d.; England, 10s.; United States. 11s. 4d. and Australia 11s. 10½d. This clearly shows that the cost of production in South Africa is necessarily higher than it is in other countries. We have to take into account not only the standard of living of the workers, but of the competition caused though the dumping of commodities produced under mass production in other countries. If we are going to cultivate not only the tanning of leather for soles and lining but the manufacture of boots, there should be protection for both industries for a few years. Will the Minister not consider the recommendation made to him by the tanners as regards rectifying this anomaly during the recess?

These recommendations are the result of joint representations made by the two industries. If you disturb the tariff in one respect the boot-makers will be asking for other concessions, and it will be impossible to meet them. The tanners have not been able to establish to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that they manufacture lining leathers in sufficient quantities or of a sufficiently high grade quality. Under these circumstances it is impossible to accept any amendment. We can only be guided where there is a conflict of interest by the expert opinion of those who have investigated the merits of the different claims put forward. Although very strong representations were made to me by the tanners I informed them that I could not disturb the recommendation made by the Board, which was arrived at only after very careful consideration of the interests concerned.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause IX., as printed, put and agreed to.

On Class X.,

We shall soon be exporting almonds and walnuts. I move that boxes required for almonds, walnuts and eggs be allowed to come in free.

I want to support the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). In supporting what has been said about nuts we know that in the Western Province thousands of almond trees have been planted and some of them are bearing already. Last year we exported £100.000 worth of eggs. That should be put in. I also want to put in a word for the fishing industry. I have a letter from a fishery firm in Cape Town. They pack their fish in boxes and there is no reason why they should pay 20 per cent. for their shooks when the other comes in free. I move—

It will not be necessary for hon. members to press these amendments. I propose providing in the Bill that a rebate shall be granted on all duty paid for raw material for packing any materials for export overseas.

One is inclined to agree with the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), but one is moved to examine the succeeding clause. Is there any box manufacturing industry growing up here?

Yes, I will explain that. Our information is that there is an industry here which we protect, but in regard to the material required for these special boxes, the woods grown in the Union are not suitable. We don’t want to give the same benefit to other classes of wood, and by giving the rebate, as I suggest, it will not harm the industry.

He is only going to make a special rebate in the case of boxes imported.

That is why the box making industry retains its protection in the Union.

We have had the rebate system before, and it took 12 months to get the money.

You must deal with it in this way.

Why cannot you put them down when specific cases are brought to your notice?

Because we don’t want to injure the industry.

But why give it for dried fruits and not for nuts?

They are dried fruits.

And why for dairy products and not for eggs? You know that in many cases people do not apply for the rebate because it is not worth while. The hon. member has lived in the interior, and has not had these difficulties. We have had the experience.

That was under the old Government.

We speak from experience, and you will have just the same experience. It is very unsatisfactory. I see you have increased the duty on carpets, brushes and brooms. The Minister has been so very considerate to household requisites like perambulators, that we are sorry to see this. He has increased the duty on furniture from 17 per cent. to 25 per cent. Why is this?

Protection of Union industries.

Why give more protection than is required?

There we differ. The hon. member does not agree with protection at all.

Why put on a duty when it is not required? They are doing all right now.

There we differ.

Take joinery, wooden frameworks of houses, including window frames, sills and sashes, doors and lintels, staircases, casements and mouldings. All these things put up the cost of living, by adding to the cost of building. Also take ceiling and flooring boards. There is a suspended duty there of 17 per cent. I don’t know any firm that makes them. I should like an explanation of this, or I shall move that these come out.

I ask the Minister to modify the tariff in 269 on sea grass and rattancore and wicker chairs. We have a tariff of 3s. 9d. each on these; that is very high duty. If they were only for the larger chairs we should not be so much concerned, but it is a high rate on children’s chairs and small chairs that come to the country. Many people who are not particularly settled and who move about from one part of the country to the other, furnish their houses considerably with rattancore and wicker furniture. This duty adds considerably to the cost of the chairs, especially the children’s chairs, and I suggest to the Minister to add after the word “chairs” in (a) “other than children’s chairs”. In the case of children’s chairs it means a hundred per cent. With regard to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says on item (d), with regard to furniture, the duty is raised from 17 per cent. to 25 per cent., which means a rise of 50 per cent. in the duty. I must point out that the furniture industry in this country has established itself with a protection of 17 per cent. It has established itself very securely, and the bulk of cabinet furniture is made in South Africa. We are getting a better class of furniture manufactured in this country than was originally imported. I fail to see why you should add another .8 per cent. on the duty. Furniture has a natural protection in addition to the protection at the port; it has the protection of freight. Freight is a very considerable item in the importation of furniture and therefore, that alone acts as a very considerable protection to the local industry and I really do not see the necessity of raising the item (d) from 17 per cent. to 25 per cent. I should say that it is more likely to add to the cost of furniture in the country than to achieve any other object.

I—

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has already addressed the committee twice.

On this item?

No, on the item furniture.

I must point out that I gave way to the Minister so that he could reply.

With leave of the Committee I will allow the hon. member to proceed. The hon. member should have proceeded immediately the Minister sat down.

I hope you will convey that warning to the Minister and ask him not to interfere.

I am sorry, to say I cannot allow the hon. member to continue.

Surely, Sir, I have moved an amendment since the hon. member spoke.

The hon. member. (Mr. Madeley) may speak on the amendment, but he must confine himself to that amendment.

I want to be perfectly honest. I have already spoken on that amendment.

I would move that the hon. member for Benoni be allowed to address the Committee.

He does not want to.

In reply to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), I am informed by the board that industries in Maritzburg and Kingwilliamstown are able to produce the rattan and seagrass chairs. The specific duties are provided to keep out very cheap chairs from countries like China and Madeira, where you have got exchange difficulties. The hon. member will see that this is one of the cases where an ad valorem rate would not give sufficient protection.

These are children’s chairs that I am referring to, which only cost about 3s. 9d.

I don’t know about that. With regard to item 279, which has been raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) this duty is proposed in order to promote the working up of wood into flooring and ceiling boards.

Where are you going to get the wood from?

The wood can be imported and you can also use South African woods.

You have not got anything like sufficient South African woods.

I am informed that there are already industries of that kind springing up where they work up various kinds of woods into ceiling boards.

Am I in order in moving that the committee permit the hon. member for Benoni to speak?

I am sorry, that cannot be moved.

I would remind the Minister, who, a little while ago, said that it was not necessary to include this class of box, he had to make special provision for boxes for fruit, fresh and dried, as you have not a suitable wood in this country. You have not got a suitable wood in this country for making egg boxes. I do wish that the Minister would provide for this, because the getting back of the rebate is a matter of very great trouble to exporters. It is only the big man who exports that gets back his rebate; the others do not get their rebates. I would move—

I wish to move—

I wish to put this in as a new item. I think it will not interfere with any industry in this country, because I do not suppose anyone has started antique furniture making.

Oh, yes, there is any amount of that.

Anybody running an antique furniture works in South Africa should be put in gaol, because they are practising fraud. There are many people coming out to this country and bringing their homes with them and they bring out their own antique furniture.

That has already been agreed to. It all comes in free.

The Bill provides for that.

withdrew his amendment.

Amendments put and negatived.

Class X, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Class XI,

I think in this particular class there has been about the biggest increase in duties, except on blankets, and I think the least justified also, if I may say so, the biggest scandal of the lot, blankets always excepted. This schedule just shows what can be done with a combination of interests, because we all know—

If the combination is a good one, it is all right.

I will tell you what the combination is. There has been a combination of the master printers on the one hand, and then there is a combination, naturally, of the workmen of the Typographical Union, and they have agreed for the purpose of fleecing the public.

In what way?

In charging extra prices, high prices. There are two combinations, and the prices charged for printing to-day are very much too high, so much so that if there is any slackness in the printing trade it is because the prices are so high. People will not order printing to the extent they would do if it were cheaper. The Typographical Union submitted a memorandum asking for increased duties on printing. The master printers also submitted a memorandum and sent a deputation to see the Board of Trade for the same purpose. I have a letter here which I have read before, but from which I might quote again now—

You have this union of the master printers and this union of the workmen and you have one member of the board who is an old printing man. The result is here.

He is a mechanic, of sorts.

Well, I am not making any reflections; I have just mentioned the fact. To my mind, the consequence is this schedule we have before us, which is not required by the trade at all. It is not necessary. Let me quote a little information I have here to show that it is unnecessary—

Then further—

Who signed it?

It does not matter who signed it. I have reason to believe that it is correct.

It might be the “War Cry”.

Let the hon. member proceed.

There is another point—

To my mind, that is also borne out by further information I have here. This is the directors’ report of the leading printing establishment in Cape Town, and it does not show that the profits have decreased. There is not the slightest justification for this increase? The report shows that the net profit, after allowing for depreciation of plant, income and dividend taxes and other charges, was £73,920. Then, furthermore, the concern is paying so well that they are extending their works at the present moment. What justification is there for an increase of duty of this kind? It is simply going to increase the profits enormously of certain concerns. Examine some of these proposals, and look at the amounts.

As a matter of fact, exercise books and copy books are free under the present tariff, because they are used for educational purposes. The duty which it is proposed to put on (see item 296 (c) ) is 40 per cent. or 6d. whichever duty shall be the greater. We heard a good deal from the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) about education and here you are going to put on a duty of over 100 per cent. on educational requisites in some cases. It is absolutely unjustifiable. I have here a memo from the Transvaal Stationers Association in which they draw attention to the increase of 30 per cent, duty on inks and ink powders. They state that a very inferior ink is being produced locally for which there is very little demand. Then take item 296 (a), this embraces picture cards, Christmas cards, birthday cards and fancy calendars. It is well known, and printers admit that these cards cannot be economically manufactured in South Africa, for many reasons. Even if the necessary machinery were available, it would not pay to manufacture them, because of the large number of designs, required. The manufacture of Christmas cards is a speciality and is confined practically to a few firms in Britain and America. This duty will simply result in increased cost to the public without benefiting anyone. Item 296 embraces practically all the bread and butter lines stocked by stationers. There is a cheaper kind of account book which is being produced in South Africa which competes advantageously with the imported article. [Time expired..]

In regard to item 296 (f), under labels I would like to point out that there is a certain high-class label that is used in the finishing off of articles manufactured in this country, such as various toilet preparations, perfumes, brilliantines and proprietary medicines generally. There are quite a lot of manufacturing places now putting up a good deal of that sort of thing and the Minister, in his tariff, is, I think, quite rightly, giving the necessary protection, but while he does that he is putting on this extra duty on a class of label that at present cannot be manufactured in this country. I have made inquiries from big printing establishments, and they tell me that no firm would be justified in laying down the necessary plant to produce the required class and quality of label. I would suggest to meet this particular case, the Minister should bring in a suspended duty between the existing 25 per cent and the proposed 40 per cent. If the South African printers find that the demand grows to an extent to justify them in putting down the necessary plant, then of course the duty could operate. As the tariff stands the position will be that, whilst he is giving protection in that direction, he is increasing the cost of finishing off the particular article which, in another part of the tariff, he has agreed to protect. It is a very serious matter, because it would be deplorable if South African manufacturers were compelled to purchase a cheap class of label to finish off the various articles they are making. This will also apply probably to jams, pickles and many other things in connection with which a nice class label, well lithographed, is used. I would ask the Minister to give this very serious consideration because it will either mean that the South African manufacturer will have to pay the extra cost to the overseas firm, or put on an inferior class of label which would destroy the selling value of the article. As is well known, a great complaint in regard to many of our South African articles is that we do not finish them off as nicely as the overseas people, and that has a very important effect on the consumer. Very often a consumer, in purchasing an article, is very much impressed by the finished appearance of it.

I move—

These are for the most part for school purposes, and I think they are here by mistake. I think they should be in the free list. I move that a new item 296 (d) be inserted, in which exercise and copy books would come in free. I move—

That puts things where they were. A similar amendment should be made in 297 (a). I think we have made out a very strong case. This increased duty is not required, and large sections of the population are protesting strongly against it. There are many things which cannot be made in South Africa and on which an increased duty has been put

I trust the Minister will not accept the amendment. I know something about the printing industry, and I think more than the hon. member for Cape Town (Central (Mr. Jagger) does. The printing industry, which is working in perfect harmony, employs 60 per cent. of white labour. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) finds fault with the master printers and workmen agreeing upon a living wage. Yet, when men go on strike we are told they ought to co-operate with the masters and try to arrive at some reasonable rate of pay. That is exactly what has been done in case of the printing industry. The hon. member thinks it quite all right for the Chamber of Commerce to combine to fix prices, but when employers and employees combine to fix wages it is quite an immoral proceeding. Although the hon. member has quoted the case of a big newspaper and printing business earning substantial profits, he should not forget that other concerns are not doing so well; he must not pick out one individual case and say that because it is prosperous all others are. Take the case of importers, the hon. member has gone cheerfully along his way, but on the Rand dozens of other firms in the same business have gone bankrupt. In the same way during the last two months three big printing firms have gone into liquidation on the Rand, while the one firm quoted by him has made big profits.

They are not entirely printing establishments.

With regard to exercise books and writing pads, which have been mentioned in the discussion, I hope the Minister will adhere to the proposed duties. If a printing office cannot make up exercise books and writing pads it cannot do anything, and it is only a question of time when competition will bring prices down to a proper level. The duty on Christmas cards and picture post cards has also been mentioned, but these goods are luxuries and are taxed for revenue purposes. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) has been complaining—with a little bit of self-interest I am afraid—about the printing of labels. Any impartial person will state that the printing industry in this country is on a very high level, and can turn out labels quite attractive enough for any of our products. Speaking with a good deal of experience of the printing trade, I say that the duties are quite justified, and will confer a lot of benefit on the printing industry.

I sincerely hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The Government having gone in for a policy of protection, I can well understand a good many of these protective clauses, though not necessarily agreeing with them, but I cannot understand why the printing trade should get this very high protection—it is higher than that given to any of our primary industries. Not a ream of paper, not a drop of ink not one single cog or wheel of a printing machine is made in this country. Of course, if you do not mind the price you pay you can make anything in this country, from a stop watch to a battleship. I understand that the protection we required was to those industries which work up our primary products, but the duties on printing material and stationery is protection run wild. It is not protection of industries, but the bestowal of favours on certain privileged people. Why should the printing trade get a protection of 40 per cent. at the expense of the taxpayer? It is said that the printing industry employs 60 per cent. of Europeans, but the jewellers employ 100 per cent. white labour.

How many jewellers are there?

That is not the question. Why the printing trade, which is a bastard industry in a technical sense, and merely works up the products of other countries, should receive a protection twice as high as that accorded to any of our primary products passes my comprehension. I think the evidence goes to show that the printing and stationery trade in this country is not a local industry, and that it is in a very prosperous condition. Above all, why should this trade get twice as high a protection as other industries at the expense of the taxpayer?

It is only fair to state that before this protection. 25 per cent. generally speaking, that trade was in a parlous position. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will bear me out that the people of Cape Town used to send away anywhere to get their advertising matter printed. It used to come in by the ton. The object of imposing this tariff was to institute a local industry. In the main, I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that we must first encourage the promotion of industries based on our own raw products. But in this industry we encourage the importation of the raw material—the paper and the inks. The fundamental raw material for the printing industry is paper. Experiments have been carried out in the direction of instituting the making of paper in this country. It seems to be an extraordinary thing that we cannot make paper in this country. There is a certain grass grown which lends itself to making paper.

The only paper mill that was established went bung in Natal.

If it is the intention to protect by a tariff the printing and paper industry, why not carry it to the original raw fundamental material of the printing industry? I admit the trade has been built up on this protection, and it only shows how dissatisfied people become. Here they ask us to double the duty. Originally they intended to stand out shoulder to shoulder, back to back, for 50 per cent. But that was only a figure they thought of. If they could have seen more profits they would have asked for 75 per cent. Allowing the tariff method is good, I don’t think a good case has been made out by those who advocate an increase of the duty. My hon. friend said there were three big bankruptcies on the Reef. The mere statement that there has been a bankruptcy conveys nothing. We do not know whether the organization was perfect, or whether there was a leakage, or how large it was, and we do not know how large the drawings were of the people concerned. I do not know whether he had in his mind a case I know, the firm of Constable & Co., of Boksburg. It is true they went bankrupt, but they re-opened again. The only case we have on record is the one quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). That was a mixed business exploiting a large profit from the newspaper reading world. I suppose they made something from the jobbing and that requires attention. I want to say with regard to exercise books and copy books, that I agree with the hon. member for Boksburg that it is a line of printing that can easily be done in any printing works, and if that is so, it is an argument in favour of not putting this protection on. It is undoubtedly reproduction work. It is only ruling and not typing, and can be printed whenever they have no other work to do. It can be placed in stock with the surety of selling it some time or other. After all, it forms, as the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) will agree, but a small part of the ordinary printing work of a printing establishment. I am not supporting the hon. member very strongly in his amendments, but I do say emphatically that I support this particular amendment, because you are driving it home to the people you should not, those who cannot afford to get their children educated as it is. It is one more item right up against the family budget, and I ask for the deletion of this. The revenue is practically nothing, but the effect on the public is big. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) quoted a case I would like to further quote. It was a case of the shipment of exercise books per the “Arundel Castle” and the f.o.b. value was £85 10s. The weight was 4.080 lbs. Under the old tariff the duty would have been £18 16s., under the new tariff it is £102, an increase in the duty of 440 per cent. I admit this method of percentage calculation does not always convey the exact position, but it does convey the position when we find this big difference between the old duty and the new duty.

Why import at all?

I agree, but I don’t agree with bolstering up an industry in one particular direction at the expense of the children in so marked a fashion. I ask the Minister to re-consider his attitude on the matter and do it by bounties. The fact remains that the Minister expects to get his revenues from this. He does not expect to shut these exercise books out. They are coming in, and they are going to pay on them. Who is going to pay? The family man.

It is quite refreshing to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) expound his doctrines in the House. I am inclined to agree with him that if there is a 40 per cent. duty there is a possibility of that becoming 75 per cent. When the Typographical Union come together, they generally seem to agree to bring all the pressure they possibly can for the purpose of increasing the duties and the unfortunate consumer in this country has got to pay. I want to say a word to try and soften the heart of the Minister. I want to say a word for the producers of this country. My hon. friend has not alone increased the tariff, but he has done away with the preference that formerly existed in connection with many of these articles. He must be aware of the fact that farmers in this country are very largely looking to try and get a market in Canada, especially for our wines and our dried fruit.

What are you discussing now?

I am discussing the paper duties. Canada is a large producer of pulp and a large manufacturer of paper, and we are looking to Canada very largely to get a market, which we are told is likely to be a very large market, for our dried fruit, our wines, and I understand there are great hopes of Canada being opened to our citrus fruits.

Canada is a very unfortunate example. She sends to us very much more than we send to her.

Your duties have not alone been very much enlarged, but you have done away with the whole of the preference which formerly existed on many of these articles. You have done away with the preferential rebate. I speak as a fruit farmer. May I call the Minister’s attention to Item 285 —cartons? The Minister must have noticed that a large business is done by farmers in packing their fruit into cartons for sale to passengers on the line. In connection with our export of fruit, practically every individual fruit is placed in a printed wrapper. The wrapping of our fruit, the printed wrapper in use, and the printed labels on the boxes come to a larger amount of money. We know that the charges which the fruit farmer has latterly had to pay in connection with these products which are essential to the carrying on of his business are very heavy indeed. My hon. friend knows that I have supported a principle of moderate protection, especially when it applies to articles of the soil produced in South Africa, but you cannot allow your protection to be increased under the pressure of certain interested parties until it becomes a great handicap to other people who are producing in this country and who are hoping to find a market for their products oversea. I hope that my hon. friend will be prepared to allow the duties on papers and wrappers to remain as they were. I think the duties at present existing are very fair, and there is no doubt that under those duties the printing industry has so far progressed and developed in this country that there is no body of skilled men who receive better wages than the people engaged in the printing industry.

Do you object to their getting a living wage?

I do not object to their getting a living wage, but I also want the small, struggling fruit farmer to get a living wage by not having to pay an exorbitant price for the necessities of carrying on his business. I am prepared to acknowledge that the printing trade has made enormous developments in this country during recent years, and that some of their work is of an admirable character, but I say that has grown up under the existing protection, and what is going to happen is this, exactly what happened before when these duties were raised, the price of the goods we require is going to be out of all proportion to the extent of the protective duties and the rest of the community are going to pay for that. Take another example. We hear much about the supply of pure milk, especially for the children. I find here Item 286, cardboard discs for milk-bottles, which were formerly subject to a duty of three per cent. with a rebate of three per cent. within the Empire, which meant that they came in to this country free, are now going to pay a duty of 20 per cent. without any rebate whatever.

Make them in South Africa.

While they are making them in South Africa the people who desire to provide pure milk for the children of this country have got to pay that extra 20 per cent. That, I say, is protection gone mad. The number of people who are going to be engaged in making cardboard discs for milk-bottles is very small indeed compared to the thousands of children who would like to get milk of the best quality and the number of milk producers who would like to use these cardboard discs for their bottles. My hon. friend the Minister has not given much away. The House has been extraordinarily kind to him on account of the sympathetic way with which he has dealt with hon. members. I think he ought to listen to reason in this case. I do not know who drew up this tariff in connection with printed matter, cardboard discs, etc., but I can well imagine that somebody connected with the Typographical Union has had something to say in connection with these suggestions. Under the circumstances, I think that my hon. friend might be gracious and accept the proposals of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I would like to see him augment these proposals, and include cartons and things of that sort used for dried fruit. One of the best means of developing the fruit trade from Australasia at Wembley was by supplying tons and tons of this stuff in 1 lb. cartons.

They come in free. Free entry is provided for in another class.

I have got a statement here—

Look at 285 (c).

Those are wax cartons; I suppose they are the new arrangements in which jams and things of that sort are made up, but those I refer to are the cardboard cartons in which at Wembley, Australasia has sent huge quantities of dried fruit in ½ lb. and 1 lb. quantities, which are enormously assisting trade in Australian fruit in Great Britain at the present time. If we are going to get a trade in our raisins and dried fruits of that character, I think the only way even to bring them to the notice of people in this country is by doing them up in these cardboard boxes in presentable form. To put a heavy tax on the farmers I maintain is not right. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) says, here we have protection gone mad. The Typographical Union know how to look after themselves. They are a flourishing body, and good luck to them, both masters and men. Under these circumstances you should not ask. The public of this country to pay more than they are doing at present.

I am sorry to have to disagree with the horn member for Benoni on this point. I am not so much concerned with the increase in the cost of exercise books as what I am with finding employment for your child and my child. We have to consider that there are thousands of boys walking the streets. We have thousands even in the Cape Peninsula, many of whom are brilliant boys, who are walking the streets looking for employment.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says nonsense; he has concentrated his faculties on amassing as much wealth as he possibly can, while ignoring the well-being of the children of South Africa. I remember the hon. member when he was a member of the school board, and I know his treatment of the children of South Africa, while he is concerned with profits. We are concerned especially with the children of South Africa. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has also been shedding crocodile tears over the children suffering under the increased cost of exercise books. That may be; but in the meantime our boys are unemployed, and I congratulate the Minister, along with the Board of Trade, on this tariff. It is not perfect, and there may be items with which I do not agree, but I do believe the Minister and his board have tried to foster these industries, especially those which will find employment for the youth of South Africa.

I think there is another way, perhaps, of increasing the scope of employment of the youth of South Africa in the printing trade, and that is that instead of their coming to the Government and asking for more protection and still more protection, that they should put their heads together and see if they cannot reduce their charges.

Why didn’t you do it when you were in the Government.

When I was in the Government I had no control over the printing trade at all.

No, but you were a member of the Cabinet.

I was a member of the Cabinet but not a Minister for printing. This is one of the most highly organized industries we have in South Africa, and in some ways it is a model industry. It has set an example to industries of how to manage the relations between employers and employed, and I wish the example were followed by many other industries. They have certainly achieved, perhaps largely owing to the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson), a method of settling industrial relations. I do think an industry which has arrived at this stage of organization really ought to show a better amount of capacity in order to meet the diminishing demand, instead of simply coming and asking for more protection. Why is the demand falling off? It is because the prices are exorbitant; people cannot afford to pay them. Hon. members are very often quoting Henry Ford’s remarks, and I would ask them to consider what he says on points like this—

Not by reducing wages, but by improved organization and improved methods. When you find an industry like the printing industry coming to the Government and asking for more protection, well, one gets very alarmed about what the effect of the tariff is going to-be on industries in this country. We are told that tariffs are to protect infant industries and to give them a chance of growing up; but do they ever grow up? I am afraid the fact that the Minister has given way so easily to an industry like this, which is fully grown up and fully organized, only shows the same thing is going to happen in other industries. As soon as an industry finds it is not doing as well as it should be, very likely owing to had organization or in efficient management, instead of improving these things they come along and ask for a tariff wall, just a foot higher, and next year, when they find foreign competition still coming over, they want to put more on. The printing industry is one of the best organized industries in the country, and it is up to it to put its house in order and see that it meets the demand of the people in this country. It is capable of indefinite expansion and of providing much more employment by doing the work more efficiently and at cheaper rates.

It seems the debate of three or four days ago has been repeated to-day. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has told us to take Mr. Henry Ford’s advice; but it is a very different position between selling a car at £60 and exercise books at 6d. each. A great deal has been said about protection gone mad. I think a great deal of things have gone mad in this House besides protection. It was a most extraordinary thing to hear some of the speeches. It is left to the Board of Trade and Industries to bring these exercise books in free, if they want to do so, and there is very little doubt that that power may be exercised. Why all this talk about the printing trade? I suppose, just because it has gone on as it has done. I do not wish to make my remarks against the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) personally. I wish to repeat, that the greatest acts of kindness which I have received in connection with the railwaymen, I received from him when he was Minister of Railways. We must dissociate the man from the merchant.

You cannot.

I know you have not a broad enough view to do that. Reverting to the printing question, we went through all that the other night, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has brought up the subject again. You have three newspapers in this town, and it is one of the three which he says pays 20 per cent on a capital of £175,000. But for years that concern paid no dividend at all. What little money it had in hand it put to reserve fund. He did not tell us that, as while he is the most honest of men politically he is not honest when he did not tell us that there is about £227.000 of reserve fund, which gives a working capital of £400,000. The result is that the dividend does not come to 20 per cent. but to 9 per cent. on the capital employed.

How do you make that out?

They paid 20 per cent. on £175,000, but if they had paid dividend also on the reserve fund it would only have been between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. I thought it was only the Scotchman who took a day to see a joke. I am prepared to name half-a-dozen firms in this country of which the individual partners have drawn more than £35,000 between them during one year. I am prepared to name the firms to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). I think he could name some of them too.

What has that to do with the question?

The printing trade are not coming for more protection, but in order to see that they do not get any less. Suppose a firm turns over £600,000, my hon. friend will admit that his trade makes less profit than is got in the ordinary business. This concern, as I said the other night, has a large advertising business, and a large newspaper connection. Is the hon. member aware that one of the largest printing firms gave up their printing and went in for the newspaper business. If it had been such a good business they would not have done that. Another thing which makes me sure that it is not such a very fine business is that the hon. member has not gone in for it.

That is wrong.

My hon. friend is in a large number of businesses for the purpose of making profit, and quite legitimately so, but what do we find here? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) speaks of schemes of development to improve production, but the first thing touched, when you seek to make a profit, is the wages of your servants, which are brought down. The printing trade has been a model one. It has been so arranged between masters and men that they have avoided disputes for years. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) got very anxious because these little cardboard tops for the milk bottles were going to be so expensive.

What about the wrapping paper for all our fruit?

I want the people who grow fruit to get everything as cheaply as possible. That is legitimate, but I am dealing with the things which you should not have dealt with. These cardboard discs can be produced in this country at very little more than the overseas cost, and they ought to be protected. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down is quite right about these carton discs, and other cartons, about which we have heard so much. There was a terrible song about the discs on the milk bottles also. I believe the cost is 6d. per 10,000. The cartons mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) are being made here and printed here very cheaply, and the hon. member is quite right when he says that what we want is that these things should be made and produced in this country, instead of imported. In regard to the printing trade generally, and those printed and manufactured articles, the whole policy in regard to this is based on the fact that we still import every year about £500,000 worth of printed matter and manufactured stationery We want that printed and manufactured in this country. There is a Master Printers’ Union, but there is also very keen competition between the printers, and the information of the Board of Trade is that, on the whole, the prices are favourable. We want to secure the market for these goods that are at present imported so that they can be made in this country. If the people concerned can obtain this business, they will be able to give decreased prices. The Board of Trade has been assured that if this market can be captured prices will not be raised unduly, and I am going to move an amendment making provision for a decrease of duty in the minimum column, so that if the people responsible do unduly raise prices, the duty will be decreased at once.

What are you going to take as the basis—a well-managed or a badly-managed concern?

Competition is very keen, and a firm will not get the business if there is a great difference in prices. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why exercise books should be imported, as they can be made here very cheaply. Those that cannot be made here can be admitted free of duty as school requisites. There is no reason why the things that can be made here should not be purchased at very reasonable prices. To enable, if at any time the board finds the industry is not playing the game and is raising the prices when it has captured the trade, it will be possible for the Government to reduce the duty. I move the following amendment—

The Minister was evidently under the impression that the cartons used for packing dried fruit—

They are made here very cheaply.

The Minister thought they came in free. Wax cartons for jars should also come in free.

There would be no object in doing that for the cartons the right hon. member pleads for are made here very cheaply. This means very little to the farming industry. The same argument does not apply to wax cartons which cannot be made here.

Although they are made here, the duty is to be increased from 5 per cent. to 30 per cent.

They will not be imported.

My experience has generally been that when the duty is increased, the selling price, no matter what the profit is on the South African made article, is just a little below that of the imported article.

No, competition is very keen.

There are one or two items I would like to call attention to. In Item 296 are mentioned calendars, calendar pads and almanacs; all that class of work can only be produced where there is a big output. It would be absurd to print a calendar for a country with a population of only 1½ million whites. It is all specialized work, and I do not see any necessity for the duty to be raised to 35 per cent. Then in the case of pictures mounted or unmounted, or for framing, not containing printed advertising matter, has the word “not” been inserted by mistake? Under Item 294, paintings, etchings, picture books, etc., come in free. I take it that all works of art are imported free.

If imported under certain conditions.

Then pictures not containing advertising matter have to pay 35 per cent. I will leave that for a moment, so that the Minister can look into it. On (b), "directories, guide books, year books, and handbooks relating to South Africa,” I suggest that before the word “relating” the Minister should insert the word “mainly” or “principally,” because practically every guide book has information relating to South Africa. That would mean that all guide books would come under the high duty. Take the ordinary Whitaker If you turn to some pages of that you will find it contains statistics relating to South Africa, Are we to pay 40 per cent. duty on that because it has one reference to South Africa? The intention of the Minister is that South African guide books should be printed in this country.

It will not be difficult to deal with that.

The Minister has said that exercise books and copy books can be produced cheaply in this country. If so, I suggest we keep the duty at 40 per cent., and that we delete the duty of 6d. per lb. They cannot produce them cheaply if a 40 per cent. tariff will not protect them, and I suggest it is high enough to protect any industry. Tire 6d. per lb. is really meant to be 100 per cent. I move—

Early in the afternoon I made certain statements which were contradicted. I believe, in the past, the House has taken for granted all statements made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) as correct without considering them. I think an end should be put to that. The member’s arguments are not only arguments to satisfy those in the same line of business, but they are very selfish, and are only calculated for one object—greed. I was quite correct when I stated 16,000 of your children and my children were unemployed.

I cannot share any blame with you for them.

There were interjections that there were only 8,000 unemployed. I have taken the trouble to make an enquiry, and I find on the 30th June (yesterday) there were 875 unemployed registered at the Cape Town Juvenile Advisory Board. If 875 were so registered we can easily assume that it is not only 16,000 unemployed, but over 20,000, for this reason, that if there are 875 registered with the Government it is generally agreed to be only 33⅓ per cent. of the boys and girls unemployed. Therefore when we consider’ Johannesburg, East London, Durban and Port Elizabeth we can assume there are over 16,000 unemployed. We must support the tariff if only to find employment for your children and my children.

Supposing we haven’t got any?

You are one of a large number of gentlemen who refuse to have children.

We are not made that way.

Talk sense.

Nature does not allow of it.

It is those gentlemen who have no children who are hostile toward children having an opportunity of any advancement in this country. Let us find work for our children when they are educated, and if we support the tariff as laid down it will make for development in industry, and neither your child nor my child will be unemployed.

There has been a good deal of jealousy shown towards the printing industry because of the supposed great profits made out of it, and secondly because the conditions are so good for the employees that there is no unrest and there have been no strikes in this trade. With regard to the question as to whether the trade is particularly profitable, I would like to quote an instance that will appeal to gentlemen on the other side. The biggest printing firm in the country—the “Argus” Company—have gone clean out of the jobbing printing and stationery business. In Natal the firm of P. Davis and Sons have also gone clean out of the printing and stationery business there. I think these instances prove conclusively that if the printing and stationery business had been such a good thing as has been suggested, two big firms like these would not have given it up. With regard to exercise books, writing pads and things of that sort, the figures quoted by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) certainly show a big increase of duty and I would suggest to the Minister that when the tariff is altered so radically the goods actually on order should be allowed in under the old basis, otherwise you inflict great hardship on people who, not knowing that the tariff was going to be altered, have ordered their goods in the ordinary way. Once these goods are manufactured in this country, however, I am quite satisfied from my own experience of the industry that you will find that they will never be imported again. There is no reason why these goods should not be manufactured practically as cheaply in this country as they are imported to-day. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort mentioned the question of cartons. I will quote a concrete case in regard to cartons. Last Christmas there was a gala on the Rand and a friend of mine wanted to purchase cartons in which to place confetti. He spoke to me, knowing that I used to be in the trade, and asked where he could get these cartons. I went to the largest wholesale stationery firm in Johannesburg and asked for the price of 10,000 confetti cartons. The price given was £3 15s. per 1,000, printed. I said that was too much. At present there are no fewer than three firms in Johannesburg who are doing nothing else but making these cardboard boxes, and they have imported up-to-date machinery. The price quoted by one of these firms was £1 16s. per 1.000, plain, and £2 10s. per 1,000 printed. In this particular case my friend said he did not want these cartons printed and he ordered 10,000 at £1 16s., as against £3 15s. for the imported product.

Why do they want protection?

Because they want to increase their business. The case mentioned was for a cheap line, and it was hoped to retain the trade for elaborately printed boxes. I am quoting this instance to show that the fears which have been expressed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. (Sir Thomas Smartt) that if you put on this duty, the farmers will have to pay more for their boxes, are absolutely unfounded. We already have competition in Johannesburg between three factories, which will regulate prices. I hope the Minister will stand firm on this item.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Jagger in Items (291) and (296) (a) and (b); and Mr. Stuttaford in Items (296) (a) and (b) put and negatived, amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance in Item (296) (a) (b) put and agreed to.

I would like to refer to item 301. I see that the Minister of Finance has deleted from the free list an item which has appeared there for years, and that is cups presented for sports meetings and such like events. The Minister of Finance, in the previous class, cut out all pictures for the poor in the way of photogravures. I hope that he won’t be so hard on sports people as to insist that their cups are to be charged with a very considerable duty, and I would suggest that after (b) he should add “and other sporting events.’ We South Africans have been known for a good number of years as people who are very fond of sport and very good at sport. I may say that our youths have shown themselves supreme, at any rate, in one branch of sport, and that is rugger, and I would not like to think that the Minister of Finance, as a young Free Stater, is going to hit the sporting bodies by not allowing them to get in their cups free of duty, provided, of course, that they are properly marked for the purpose for which they are presented. I quite agree with that necessary proviso, but I feel certain that the Minister will agree to allow these cups to come in free of duty. There is nothing that is better for our youths than encouraging these sporting events in any form or shape, and surely this House, of all Houses in the British Commonwealth, is going to see that sport is properly looked after. I would, therefore, like to move—

I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has just said. Under the old tariff it was possible for sporting societies to import cups and trophies in connection with their various branches of sport free of duty and now under this new tariff they are not allowed to do so. As some of these trophies are very valuable, the duty in connection with them will come to a considerable amount. I would mention for the Minister’s information a concrete case which has happened to my knowledge. The Durban Turf Club, in commemoration of the visit of the Prince of Wales to South Africa, some time ago ordered a very valuable cup to be run for in connection with their racing events and they called it the “Prince of Wales Cup.” They ordered that cup under the impression that it would come in free of duty, as these things had always done before, but they found, to their surprise and dismay, when the cup arrived that they were mulcted in a very heavy duty, something like £50, on that cup. That has been a very sad blow to them, and, seeing that they imported this cup under the impression that it would be allowed in free of duty, it is very hard lines on them that they should be forced to pay this heavy duty on that particular item, and I hope that, if they make an application for a refund of this duty, the Minister will not insist on its being paid in the circumstances. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration and see if he can help them. Generally speaking, the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is quite right in saying that we ought to do all we can to encourage sporting events in this country. It is a country peculiarly adapted for outdoor sports, and it is desirable that our young men should be supreme in the sports for which they enter. I hope the Minister will kindly accept this amendment and make special exemption in connection with sporting events. I know he is in favour of sports, and I hope he will do his best to meet us in these matters.

I would very cordially like to endorse the views which have fallen from the two hon. members who have just spoken, and to ask the Minister to take their request seriously into consideration. After all, the principle underlying this item is to allow in free of duty all articles given as prizes. The principle is recognized by this item. The Minister may not know it, but this change of policy under this item has caused a great deal of disappointment among the sporting bodies throughout the country. I have had letters from sporting bodies, such as the Caledonian Society, asking me to press the Minister to give them this relief. As the Minister has gone to the extent of allowing in free prizes for rifle shooting by naval, police and military men, in principle it seems impossible for him to refuse these requests. I believe the whole question of difficulty in this clause is the question of drafting; but the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) I think meets the situation. It would be a very small loss of revenue if that request was accepted by the Minister.

I speak on behalf of amateur sportsmen, not the wealthy sportsmen. It conies as a great hardship to them if they have to pay these duties. I hope the Minister will take into serious consideration this request, in order that sport may be encouraged among our young men. It is a very dangerous principle that naval, military and police prizes should have free entry while amateur sportsmen are left out.

Seeing that there seem to be so many sportsmen in the House, I think that we might do something to meet the case, and I have some doubt whether we should include cups for race meetings. I think they should pay.

It encourages horse breeding.

I do not want to harden my heart, but I am rather doubtful about horse racing.

No, no.

Keep to the human race.

Well, I will leave it to the House to decide.

May I say to the Minister before he leaves this to the House to decide that I do hope he will include cups for agricultural show purposes.

That is provided for; they come in free.

I notice that the old reading is—

I think that would cover the hon. gentleman’s point.

We should make quite sure whether we want horse racing included or not.

I think this is very good wording, and if the House will allow me to alter my previous amendment accordingly, it will probably meet the Minister’s objection. I move—

I have been informed by the department that, if that amendment is accepted, it would be taken to include cups for horse racing. I think the House ought to vote on that. I suggest to the hon. member that he should move it at the end of (a).

All right.

I fully share the solicitude of hon. members in the matter of free importation of prizes for athletic sports. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion about that; but when you apply it to horse racing prizes, you are opening the door very widely. I think that if the hon. member wants his amendment carried, he should separate the two. Let him deal with athletics first, and afterwards he can bring up prizes for horse racing. That is athletics where human beings are competing. I should certainly not support any other qualification.

I am rather inclined to support the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen). I think one ought to separate horse racing from athletic competitions, and it can be very simply done by introducing, at the end of sub-paragraph (b), the words “and in sporting athletic competitions”. I do not think it is necessary to say “other than horse racing”, as the words I suggest would be exclusive in themselves. I move accordingly—

I would suggest to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) that he would get the same thing by adding to the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) “other than horse racing.”

What about whippet racing?

I think we are extending the discussion rather widely. In regard to horse racing, it is not racing itself that is the evil, it is the betting.

What about the dark horses?

Who is going to win the July Handicap?

I wish that I knew! If it is the feeling of the House that the two motions should be dealt with separately, I make that suggestion to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). If his wording is used, the term “athletic” refers to flat racing and events usually contested at athletic sports, and not necessarily to football, cricket, golf and so on. That inclusion is not the sense it is generally used in. They are sporting games; but do not come under the category of “athletic sports.” I think we should encourage sport for all we are worth. South Africans, when they take to sport, are pre-eminent, and I think we should support the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) as tending to further the interests of sport generally.

I hope we will not have a long discussion on this matter. The points at issue are clear. I am informed that if we want a comprehensive amendment we must adopt that of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), but if we wish a restricted amendment, then that of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water), which will include football and golf, etc. in sporting competitions.

I move—

I do not see why cups for horse racing should be excluded. A great many hon. members are interested in horse racing, and I am sure there are more people who go to races than any other sort of amusement. I do not see anything immoral in allowing a prize for horse racing to come in free of duty. As far as I know, any cups given as racing prizes are not, as a rule, of very great value, unless they are given by his Excellency the Governor-General. They are really tokens of a victory, and are supplementary to prizes which have a money consideration. If I understand the Minister aright, this has been the position up till now.

Yes.

Therefore I intend to vote against the amendment of the hon. member opposite.

I would like to support the last speaker. The House seems to have gained the impression that, in talking about horse racing, they are simply talking about clubs, such as the Durban Club or the Johannesburg Turf Club. But when there is a small gymkhana, it is run practically on the same lines, and with the same expense as clubs for athletic sports. If you intend to cut out racing clubs, you cut out the gymkhana, and cut out the small owner and the small farmer who attend not to bet but to try their horses.

Thirteen is an unlucky number but I hope this 13 will be a lucky one for an amendment I have got, viz.—

The Minister, by allowing these amendments to be voted upon on their merits, leaves the chance of mine being considered. I ask him to go back to the proposal on page 399 of the Votes and Proceedings. The proposal on 399 is the proposal recommended by the Board of Trade and Industries, and the proposal now made by the Minister has never been before the Board of Trade and Industries. I understood the Minister told us last time that a number of small traders had been to see him and that is why he made this modified proposal. I hope to be able to show that the proposal the Minister now makes is flatly against the public interest. On page 399 members will find proposals there made in regard to films. I commend (a) and (b). They remain the same. I agree with the policy of the Government in allowing blank films to come in free of duty and I agree that scientific and educational films should come in free. It will mean the encouragement of the South African film industry. The film known as the “Voortrekkers” was entirely made in South Africa and is one of the finest films ever made in the world. My quarrel with the Minister is that whereas the present duty is 5s. per 100 feet or 20 per cent. ad valorem whichever is the greater, the Minister first proposed to increase it to 8s. 4d. per 100 feet or 25 per cent. ad valorem. I agree with that, but the Minister in his new proposal has reconstructed the whole thing in such a way to make it easier to import, not the good films, but the second rate films—films which have been shown through the whole world and are then dumped into South Africa. The new proposal reduces the 8s. 4d. per 100 feet to 2s. 6d. and the ad valorem increases from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. Under the smaller rate you are going to encourage the importation of cheaper films. If you pay by the foot it costs the same duty whether the film is a good one or a second-hand one. It would pay a man at the new rates to introduce second rate and nasty films because the value is so little that he would pay very little and the result would be to flood South Africa with cheap second-hand stuff. I am a great patron of bioscopes and I go a good deal, but I like to see a good picture. All sorts of pirated films are coming into South Africa because in the case of cheaper films they are not worth the expense to the holder to take proceedings for the enforcement of the copyright. There are agents all over the world pirating films and sending them here and the Minister is going to let them in. The bioscope is a popular form of amusement, and I want to protect the public. It would be an absurd way to deal with the trusts by doing something against the public interest. In fact, it will not hurt the trust but it will injure the public. I ask you not to put it in such a way as to discourage and penalize the man who brings in the high-class film. We talk about trusts but you must remember there is an old saying—

and that there are bigger combines overseas that the trust has to do business with and even compete with. These overseas people can evade the duty altogether by sending a picture out and keeping for themselves the right of exhibition so that the value of the picture will only be the value of the print. If the overseas manufacturer wants to get rid of the duty he has only to send the picture out to agents here and to charge them the cost of the print only, his return coming from the profits of showing the picture. Then again I don’t know whether hon. members are aware what these agreements are that are made for showing films in South Africa. It is generally a right to exhibit for a certain number of years, and then, when the period is completed, that film has to be destroyed, to prevent it going as a second-class film to other parts of the world. They don’t encourage the continual sending round of a picture after it has got to a certain age. I would point out another difficulty to the Minister, where he relies on value rather than on footage. A man very often imports a film, say, from America or England, to be exhibited in. three countries, of which South Africa is one. He pays a lump sum for the exhibition of that film, let us say, in South Africa, Australia and India. He pays a lump sum for all those countries. I would like to know what value the Minister is going to take in a case of that kind. The Minister will find, as most countries have found, that to calculate per footage is the best method. He will get more revenue from it, too. I think his revenue is going to suffer unless he restores his original proposal. Then there is the case where a man gets so much of the takings. That would not come under the value of the picture. The value of the picture, again, would be the value of the print. There the Minister would suffer again.

How do you know of these things?

My information comes direct from people engaged in this industry.

We will get hold of the revenue all right.

Under your new proposal you won’t get as much revenue as you did before. This does not deal with or harm the trust in any way. The way to deal with trusts is by direct legislation aimed at contracts in restraint of trade. The whole effect of the new proposals is that second-rate films are coming in at half the duty they were coming in at before, and the high-class film is going to pay 50 per cent. more duty. If this House is prepared to agree to that proposal, that the cheaper, the nastier, the more second-rate an article is, the less duty is going to be paid on it, well and good, but I think that is not in the public interest. I do not think it is in the public interest to encourage the production of second-rate films, or second-rate clothing, or anything second-rate. I think the first-rate is the thing we should encourage in South Africa.

What about the Board of Control?

My hon. friend does not realize that the Board of Control won’t ask whether a film is second-hand or not. They will simply look to see whether a film is bad for the morals of the people. [Time expired.]

Unfortunately for the last arguments of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Alexander), at all events, we are in this position that he is objecting to now. He says that, under this ad valorem rate, you are going to find it very difficult indeed to compute what the value of a film is. I would like to say that that is precisely the position the Minister of Finance finds himself faced with at the present moment, because the present duty is on an ad valorem basis.

Footage or ad valorem.

Precisely what you have now. When the original proposals were framed some time in the past, the Minister of Finance must have found himself in precisely the same position. We have yet to learn that the Minister is so innocent that he is not able to cope with the machinations of these friends of ours, the films trust. I would ask the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) whether he seriously suggests that, as a result of reducing the tariff to 2s. 6d. per 100 ft., the African Films Trust is going to import second-rate stuff? If that is the case, I think the whole position is hopeless. I disagree with the hon. member there. You would then set up a healthy competition. To-day there is practically no competition. What we have to do is, by every means in our power, to break the power of the films trust in South Africa. An hon. gentleman interjected: “What about your board of censors?” Is it not easy for those who are on the board of control to lay that additional responsibility upon the board of censors of seeing that the films shall not hurt the eyes of the people? When you divide this ad valorem rate of 30 per cent. over all the theatres where these pictures are shown, it becomes a very small matter indeed. If the films that are going to be shown, if the hon. member’s prognostications are correct, are going to be bad for the public, the public is pretty selective where there is an opportunity of selecting, and will refuse to attend the theatres where the films are not up to date. Therefore, I say that the hon. member, who is objecting to this new rate, need not worry himself, because the public at the finish will decide whether they will or will not attend the theatres where these films are shown.

Perhaps I should at once say a few words about this matter. The principle of protection is not involved here. We protect the cinema industry by allowing their blank films to come in. Neither is the question of revenue concerned. Under the revised proposal the treasury will not get a penny more than under the original proposal that was on the paper.

Why did you change it?

I am going to tell the hon. member. When the original proposal was first put on the paper I received representations from people who came to see me, independent cinema owners. They complained that under those proposals they practically had no chance against the films trust. They were penalized under those rates. Now the old duty ad valorem of 25 per cent. was 5s. per 100 feet. The 5s. amounted to 60 per cent. This meant that a man could not import the cheaper films, or rather the cheaper films were taxed more heavily than the more expensive ones. Under the new rates the maximum duty is going to be 30 per cent. This proposal does not affect the revenue at all. I am going to leave this matter to the House to decide, whether they think under this proposal they are going to give a chance to the independent showman as against the trust, or whether we should adhere to the original proposal put on the paper. That proposal was a recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries, and this revised proposal was done by me in order to try and achieve this object of giving the independent cinema man a chance against the trust. If hon. members think we cannot achieve this object we will have to revert to the original proposals, and I will get the same revenue. I do not know what the actual objection is by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). He has only dealt with the point that we will get inferior films. If you take the average value of films imported it is about 5d. per foot. Spread over all the theatres the increased taxation will be 2s. 3d. for three nights. As I understand the hon. member, he is only concerned about the risk the public will run in getting cheaper films.

That is all that worries me.

They cannot be much worse than they are.

I am given to understand this is the only way to try and help the independent cinema owners. That is the position in a nutshell.

“His object so sublime, he will achieve in time.”

I may point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) that by substituting 8s. ‘id. for 2s. 6d. and by the words—

it appears to me there is little doubt that this means increased taxation.

What I said was that in my revised proposals I reduced the specific duty and increased the ad valorem duty. The hon. member wants to reverse that. Actually the amount of revenue you will get will be the same.

I must point out to the Minister that if the words “whichever duty shall be the greater” remain, it means that the 8s. 4d. will be preferred to the 25 per cent.

No. In some cases it would be; but in others the 25 per cent. would be more.

If the Minister assures me it will not mean an increase in taxation I will accept the amendment. Otherwise I cannot accept it.

No, sir. The result will be exactly the same, and in any case, as far as this is concerned, I will try and get the recommendation of the Governor-General if that is going to be the difficulty. I want to leave it to the House to decide.

It seems to me the Minister is not quite certain whether it would mean additional taxation or not. I cannot now take a vote and allow the Governor-General to give instructions afterwards.

May I make a suggestion to the Minister. I do not want him to do anything whatever to help the trust against the small people. As I view these proposals they are not in the public interest. The Minister has admitted that the original proposal was recommended by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade recommended it as I recommend it, and the Minister goes and alters it.

But this is a matter of policy.

I do not say he has not a right to do it, but it is extraordinary that we go through all this procedure; the proposal is put on the paper and so on, and then he alters the recommendations of the board. What I suggest to the Minister is this. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if he will undertake to get a report from the Board of Trade upon this new proposal, and I will be quite prepared to abide by it.

Why should he?

I am afraid whether the hon. member withdraws it or not, I will not be able to accept it.

There is nothing for the board to report on. I have told the House quite frankly that the board’s recommendation was the other one, and this is mine, as a matter of policy.

You accepted it. You put it on the paper.

But since then representations were made to me, and I thought a very strong case was made out.

I think that probably I am the only man who can speak with authority on the subject. Hon. members may not know that I was a film actor once.

Are you a star?

Some years ago I acted in a play in Los Angeles; California, and I shall be sorry if my films will have to be excluded. I am not exactly a star, but I did act in some films. I am afraid we shall be keeping good films out, and hon. members will not have the opportunity of seeing me act. I hope hon. members will take ray advice, and that the Minister will go back to the original proposal. I would like to know how many small men there are in this country interested in the film business. I believe all these small concerns in towns are dependent on the African Films people. They take these films in rotation, and I believe there is only one independent concern in this country. If it is desired to help the small man, there is nobody to help. If you do want to do away with the evil of the trust you should introduce legislation. But why encourage the film trust to bring in films of a mean order, and not be able to see me act.

Any film taking in the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) must have been a good few feet long. I want to know whether the Minister is aware that the present duty on films is extended to include films used in toy lanterns. The modern boy wants something better than the old-fashioned magic lantern, and consequently he goes in for a toy cinematograph, and upon the films used by the boy when giving an entertainment to the family circle, the same duty is charged as on the films which are for public exhibition. To me this savours very much of dipping into the children’s money box. I made representations privately with regard to this matter, but was unsuccessful, and I would like the Minister to consider whether it is not somewhat unfair to charge a duty of this kind upon a toy. Perhaps the position might be met by inserting after “other” the words “for public exhibition”, and I move accordingly—

I understand that the trade in toy cinematographs is increasing considerably and I understand that a greater business would be done were this duty removed from the toy film.

I do not think we can altogether exempt the class of film mentioned by the hon. member. These will come in at half the rate 2s. 6d. per 100 feet. I do not think I could exclude these films altogether.

I would like to call attention to a matter of somewhat more importance than that, namely, the duty on matches. That has been in existence practically for 40 years, having been put on in 1884; not from the protective point of view, but for revenue purposes, and it has remained ever since. To show what it really comes to, I have a letter here from a wholesale house in Cape Town in which they say that they can buy a match, superior in every way, packed in tin lined cases at 2s. c.i.f., but the duty being 2s. 6d. a gross, equal to 150 per cent. on the f.o.b. price, it is hopeless. Here is a fair example of the results of protection. This business is in the hands of a trust. There is only one company making matches in South Africa. When the thing started, several factories started up, but, after a time they found it was pretty useless cutting each other’s throats, and so they formed one company or trust. As a rule these duties are put on in order to encourage infant industries, but here is an infant which has been sucking at the breast for 41 years and still has to be supported by a heavy duty. I am not going to move a reduction as that seems to be useless except in a case of cups for horse-racing or something of that kind. But this just shows what the result of these duties will be. It is simply taxing the public for certain individuals. The company pays a good dividend. There is another point to which I wish to draw attention—Item 325—public stores, imported or taken out of bond and bona fide for the sole and exclusive use of the Government, etc. Those come in free. Of course, under this new tariff, printing and stationery and the like, the duties are going to fall heavily in certain directions. As the Minister knows, I warned him at the time; but money has been found for a requisite store for the schools throughout the country to be run by the administration. I understand that the requisite store will be supplied free of duty.

Why not?

This is a socialistic principle of my hon. friends the Labour members, but other people want to live. There are first class people who provide requisites for schools, and have been doing it for years.

At a big profit.

No. Some hon. members would like to drive the private trader out of business in favour of a Government which made a mess of things. The general idea is that the provincial government is dropping money on the school requisites store. How can any private people compete with the requisites stores when the duties in some cases amount to 100 per cent.? I had been informed that the requisite store supply books to the principals of schools who sell them at a profit to the pupils—copy books and the like.

Under 326 school and hospital furniture and requisites are admitted free of duty. Copy books will come in free if the Board of Trade states that they cannot be made here. Under this section the goods can be imported free by the hon. member.

In Item 325 it is laid down that a certificate is required. First you have a requisite store and then it breaks the law by selling the stuff it imports free of duty to the principals of schools who sell it to the scholars.

No, it is not so. These things may be imported under Item 326, the articles referred to in which are in the free list.

This does not apply to copy books and exercise books.

They can come in under this. A copy book is a school requisite.

That puts a very different aspect on it altogether. Could an exercise book be imported free of duty for sale by an Adderley Street firm? If I had the assurance of the Minister that that could be done, that would place another aspect on the whole thing.

I said this afternoon that copy books or exercise books, if they are not procurable in the Union, the Board of Trade could give a certificate and they could be imported free of duty.

I am sorry to say the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has already spoken twice.

Your ruling is a little bit narrow.

Every exercise book used in the schools can be made in South Africa. My hon. friend wants it both ways. He argued that it would be bad for education because we put a duty on exercise books, and now we have a Government store which is selling the books at a cheap rate the hon. member is arguing against it.

I want the same privilege given to the private dealer.

You want it both ways.

No, I don’t.

The hon. member twitted the hon. members with this being socialistic legislation. The old Free State Republic was a model republic but it was not socialistic, and it imported school requisites for 30 years. When my hon. friend took charge of the railways he went in for Government trading with a vengeance. He increased the dining saloons and competed with the Bloemfontein hotels and did the same thing here.

I did not go any further.

I will say this he made a profit out of it for the State, and proved that when he had controlled the State machinery he could make it pay. He did more than anyone else on behalf of socialism in this country. The greatest friend South Africa has ever had, so far as socialism is concerned, is the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) because when he took charge of the State railways, he made the dining cars pay, he made the restaurants pay, and he made everything pay.

Order.

I know I am out of order.

I do not understand the arguments of the last speaker, but I understood the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wanted to know whether under clause 326 the merchant was to have a chance of importing these goods free for the purpose mentioned, so as to be able to compete with the requisite stores on an equal basis. I agree it is unfair to the poor requisite stores, because everybody knows if the merchant comes in on the same basis, he will knock the requisite store out. It will not have a chance. It seems to me perfectly fair and equitable that it should be so. We understand in this Province that the provincial people have sent a solicitor as an expert to buy stationery for the requisite store, and it seems to me it would be an advantage to the country to allow the merchant to offer goods to the public service on exactly the same terms and conditions as they can buy them themselves. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wants to know if the merchant can compete on the same terms as the requisite store.

Yes, that is so.

On the free list you will notice films—

I ask the Minister to agree—

It is now established that the film is now one of the most forceful of educational media, and so far from discouraging it we should give it encouragement. There are very few films likely to be introduced to be shown solely to scientific societies or educational institutions. There may be some, but it is our place to take advantage of all the opportunities to educate the public. A great deal of good has been done by the few educational films which have been shown publicly, and the more we encourage these films to come in tree, the greater the number of the public who are likely to be educated.

That will be impossible, how are the officers going to decide what film is of an educational nature.

Well, how will they do it now?

It will be easier because it will come over for a special purpose.

I suppose you would show the “Moon of Israel” if it came over for one of these societies?

Come, come, the hon. member knows the difference between a film of that sort and an educational film.

I move an amendment—

I hope the Minister will accept it, because, as it is at present, it means we shall get secondhand films instead of the better class. The Minister has quite rightly left it to the House to decide and I hope the House will use its common sense.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley put and negatived.

I must point out that the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Dr. Steyn) means a reduction on my proposal. This is 5s. The proposal was 8s. 4d. I was prepared to leave the other to the House, but not the 5s.

Item 325 refers to—

I would like to know what Government belongs to the Union. Does this refer to Basutoland, Bechuanaland, etc.?

It may be a provincial administration.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Strachan put and negatived.

With leave of Committee, amendment proposed by Dr. Steyn withdrawn.

Class XIII, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Class XIV.

Class XIV, general.

I desire to move in an amendment there. The Minister in all his ad valorem duties has been satisfied to go to 40 per cent., which is, in itself, a stiff duty. His highest ad valorem protective duty in these schedules. I think, is 40 per cent. But he has gone outside that, and in some cases given a specific duty. Surely my hon. friend, upon the whole, should be satisfied with a 40 per cent. duty as a maximum. I want to move the following addition under this class—

That keeps everything down to a level of 40 per cent. Surely 40 per cent. should be sufficient for any protection. I think this is a very reasonable proposition.

I think my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) is trying it on now. He must think us very, very innocent to move an amendment like that at this stage It would, of course, defeat the whole object of the specific duties that we have tried to get through all the time in regard to the articles concerned. I do not think my hon. friend can be serious.

I want you to be reasonable.

Amendment put and negatived.

Class XIV, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Class XV,

I am not against this. At any rate, it is a reduction of duty in many cases. There is a distinct differentiation right throughout this. If goods are imported for sale again they pay the duty, if for manufacture, they do not pay the duty. It is beyond human nature; you invite fraud by this sort of thing. Take the small man who has imported a certain amount of material, say, for boot and shoe manufacture. He has imported more than he requires. It will be very difficult indeed to prevent that man from letting his friends have a little bit. Take calico and the like. When you get outside the customs house you are not going to identify which has been imported for one specific purpose or the other. I defy my friend and all his custom officials to identify it. There is bound to be a lot of fraud in this to the detriment of the honest man.

The hon. member is quite right in warning us that these things may happen but I can give him the assurance that the department is fully alive to the necessity of properly controlling these matters. The hon. member will know, of course, that this has been in force for some time.

But not on such a big basis.

No, not on such a big basis; but it is possible that by stringent regulations they will easily handle the thing. It will mean additional expense; we must have a proper staff, but the Government will see it is done both for the protection of the revenue and for the protection of the honest man.

A case was brought to my notice the other day. Unfortunately my informant would not give us definite information as regards the people concerned, but there was a statement made all the same.

I would like to emphasize what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has been speaking about. Take No. 359, shirt, collar and pyjama manufacturing industry. In these cotton piece goods there is a duty of roughly 15 per cent. ad valorem, if they come in for sale purposes, and free if for manufacture. There is such a thing as a manufacturer getting hard up for money and he may be in the position he has to realize his stock. He may have overbought himself with certain goods which are saleable. He must realize in some way. When the goods come in free of duty, he has to turn them into shirts.

We will check his output of shirts.

I have tried my hand at this myself, and I can assure the Minister it will be a very difficult thing for him to say how many thousand of yards of shirting are in a thousand dozen of shirts. He would find a very big discrepancy between the piece goods imported and the goods turned out. When you have the importer or manufacturer himself having that difficulty the officials of the customs will have still greater difficulty. He is bent on this method, and I suppose it is useless to say anything. I should like to refer to Item 371—dyes. I do not know whether the Minister has had the opportunity of thinking-over that question. If he agrees with my suggested method, it would necessitate at the end of 371 (1) the words—

So as to make it necessary for a man, if he wants to get the goods in free, to buy such a quantity that it could only be used for manufacturing purposes.

I have not gathered from what hon. members have said whether they object to Item 359, or are pointing out that the manufacturer may abuse this right. I take it that the Minister will deal with this matter in the Act and regulations. I am glad to see this item; it is a thing I have been urging for years.

I draw attention to the fact that there is not a quorum.

Committee counted, and the Chairman declared that a quorum was present.

I brought to the notice of the House a wonderful industry that had been started at Worcester, in a small way, by employing a number of girls belonging to what are usually called the poorer families, and the result of which was a remarkable success. The girls were accommodated in hostels, and after a short training, turned out finished shirts which, in the opinion of a person who also imported from overseas, were as good as any imported article, and he foresaw a tremendous development in this particular industry. We tried with the late Government to get substantial protection, but did not succeed. I am glad the present Government is helping in this way by allowing the raw material to come in free and, I foresee that this is going to be a tremendous industry, namely, the making of pyjamas, shirts and collars, and that it is going to use a tremendous amount of labour of the class I have referred to which is at present unemployed—respectable people who have no work at all. Now with the free introduction of the raw material I see the prospect of tremendous development, and this is an industry which need not be concentrated in the large towns. I congratulate the Minister on this particular item.

Class XV and the note put and agreed to.

The first part of the motion, standing over, put and agreed to.

Resolutions on customs duties to be reported. House Resumed:

The Chairman stated that the committee had agreed to a resolution on customs duties, and that he would bring up a report at a future sitting.

I move—In line 44, to omit “letter, article”; in line 45, to omit “cartoon or other printed matter”; in line 47, to omit “inserted in any newspaper or otherwise”; in lines 51 and 52, to omit “letter, article or other matter” and to substitute “bill, placard, poster, pamphlet or circular”; in line 58, to omit “newspaper or other and in lines 60 and 61, to omit “letter, article or other matter aforesaid” and to substitute “bill, placard, poster, pamphlet or circular”.

This amendment is proposed by me not because I am supporting the clause, but it is suggested in the evidence by one witness who alone gave any evidence which may be claimed to be not entirely against this clause. The reasons he gave will be seen in the evidence. We find that all the witnesses, without any exception, consider this clause contains very drastic proposals. I don’t think anyone is able to tell us what the object of this clause is. We were, however, able to gather from some of the members of the committee what the motive behind the clause was, but none of the witnesses seemed able to appreciate the necessity of such a clause. No evidence was given as to the necessity of a clause like this.

You heard them on the second reading debate.

I am confining my remarks to the evidence before the select committee at present. Oh the second reading debate we had several suggestions made for the necessity of this clause. In the select committee members made suggestions, but none of the witnesses gave any good reason for the introduction of such a clause, and none of the witnesses supported this clause as it stands. The clause has been further amended by the select committee by putting in the word “report.” There is not a single word of evidence in favour of that. If we are making a drastic change such as this we should have an overwhelmingly strong case, but on the contrary the overwhelmingly strong case made in the select committee was entirely against the clause. It was suggested in the second reading debate by hon. members that the idea was to clip the wings of a certain section of the press. I know my hon. friends over there think one section of the press is immoral, and the other section is absolutely perfect. One gathers from what was said by members on the other side that this was an attempt to use a party majority in Parliament for purely party purposes. Every witness we had before us emphatically stated that this clause imposed irritating and futile restrictions on the press. After all, what can the reason for some of these provisions in this clause be but to satisfy idle curiosity. It compels the press to disclose certain intimate details of their organization which certainly must act to their detriment, and to the benefit of opposition proprietors. Let us refer to some of the evidence given. Let me, in the first instance, consider the evidence of members of the Dutch press—the Dutch press supporting the Government. Read the evidence, the only evidence which has a shade of opposition to our view, that is the evidence of the editor of “Die Burger.” At page 48 of the report it will be found that he said—

Let me say that there was no suggestion by any of the witnesses against any particular section of the press to justify the suggestion—I will call it a suggestion—that elections were not conducted in a clean way by the press. There was one suggestion attempted, against a particular section, which I shall refer to later on, and that suggestion was answered immediately by the witness quoting a similar incident on the other side. So you cannot choose one section of the press as being the only guilty party. The editor of “Die Burger,” in his evidence, proceeds—

As regards letters, I distinctly welcome the provision, for we will get no more anonymous letters. In most cases such letters are a nuisance to the editor.

Not the public, it will be noted. He is only thinking of the editor. He continues—

That is the evidence of the only man who comes close to supporting this clause. What is his suggestion to get out of the difficulty? I want to show you the state of mind of this witness. He suggests—

That is the suggestion he makes. [Time expired.]

This clause has two objects. In the first part it requires the publishers of a newspaper to print the word “advertisement” at the head of any matter in the newspaper which has to be paid for. Weil I think that is reasonable enough; it is the second part that is so very objectionable. When the Minister introduced this Bill he told the House that the object was to secure purity of elections as far as possible, and to curb the money power which was used to mislead the public, and, I suppose, debauch the public mind. He wanted to clip the wings of the press, which was supported by capitalists; and apparently he was very angry with the money power. He went on to say that money was used freely at times of election through the press in order to mislead the public mind. It is quite true that money is used to support the press. No large newspaper can be run in this or any other country without a large amount of capital; but to say that in this country money is used in order to buy the press and corrupt the press and therefore public opinion, is totally beside the truth. There is no evidence of it. The fact, I think, is this. If the bulk of the public press published in English had been supporting the pact Government during the last election we should have heard nothing at all about this clause.

Except from your side.

There is no doubt at all that a temporary majority in Parliament is now being used to practically reverse the whole practice of the public press throughout this country during election time. The Minister wants to get at the truth. The question, what is the truth, is a very old and classical one which has not been satisfactorily answered yet. With regard to political matters, I am quite sure that what is the truth in the opinion of the Minister of the Interior at an election time might not be the truth in my opinion. Opinions differ, and I think that the Minister would be well advised to delete the whole of this sub-clause (2) and leave the press, whether it advocates the policy of the Government or the policy of the opposition, to carry on as it has been doing. The result of this clause would be to impose on the press an irritating and unnecessary duty. The idea that all leading articles, all sub-leaders, and all paragraphs inserted in the press in connection with an election have to be signed by the writer, who must add his address, seems to be totally unnecessary, necessary.

What is the harm in it?

What is the good in it? I think before you seek to impose this and bring in something entirely novel in conducting the press of this country, you have to make out a good case, and so far a good case has been made out. We have had no evidence.

We called one witness after another who knows a good deal about the press, and the evidence was such a thing as buying the press is practically unknown in South Africa, and that applies to papers of all shades of opinion. Does the Minister think that any candidate for election can come along and, by inserting a large number of advertisements in the “Cape Times” or any other newspaper, can buy that newspaper’s support? I think the press in this country has an exceedingly high tradition. Its character for impartiality and probity stands high.

Hear, hear.

And this is a futile effort of the Minister to purify the press. The evidence shows that the whole of the newspaper men, those who will have to carry out this provision. [Time expired.]

In connection with this section, I feel that I have to make a statement in connection with what I stated during the second reading debate. On that occasion, I made a charge against the newspaper “The Bloemfontein Friend.” I related that a certain letter had appeared in the “Friend” on the Monday morning criticising a speech by the Prime Minister which appeared only in that morning’s issue. The inference which I drew at the time seemed to be quite a natural one, and I stated that it seemed impossible that this letter could have been written by a man who had read the Prime Minister’s speech. The editor has written to me and has assured me that this was a bona fide letter, as the writer had seen the report of the Prime Minister’s speech in the Johannesburg “Star” on Sunday, and that the letter was written by a man resident in Bloemfontein who had seen the speech. I have expressed my apology to Mr. McKenzie, the editor, and he has accepted it, but, having made the charge in this House, I felt it my duty also to make this statement in the House.

I was busy giving a suggestion by the editor of “Die Burger” as to how he is going to get over this difficulty. The suggestion is that four or five persons, who Were present at the meeting, are to make a sworn declaration, before a magistrate, that the report is incorrect and false on certain specified points, and that the incorrectness is of such a nature that it is in the public interest that the name of the reporter should be ordered by the magistrate to be made known. That is the suggestion of the only witness who comes in any way near supporting the clause. I think he is going to have more difficulty in satisfying the magistrate that these five witnesses are correct, than anything else I can think of. When five witnesses can be found to state that a certain man said a certain thing at a certain meeting many more than five will always be found honestly to say that they understood the very opposite. Consider next what another supporter of the Government, the hon. member for Pretoria District (North) (Mr. Oost) said—

That is the evidence of one of the Minister’s strong supporters in this House. Let me take the evidence of Mr. Rompel, sub-editor of Die Burger, the Government’s newspaper.

Mr. Rompel said—

This evidence is very interesting, more particularly as it represents one paper which one would have expected from past experience, if it could say anything in favour of the Minister’s views, would do so. Mr. Rompel proceeded—

Other witnesses supported his views as to the absolute integrity of the reporters, and yet it is attempted to prove that false reports are deliberately inserted in newspapers—

Let me say it has been stated to me definitely that if the clause goes through, we will find that at election time that there will be no reference to the election at all in some of the newspapers, and the public will find they will be cut out altogether—

All his evidence is to that effect. I suggest hon. members should read Mr. Rompel’s evidence. It will show what that section of the press supporting the hon. members opposite says, and what responsible persons connected with the press think of that clause. The only suggestion in favour of retaining this clause was made by the editor of “Die Burger” who was no doubt in a very awkward position, but even he suggested the change which is suggested in my amendment.

Why was he in an awkward position?

I need not tell my hon. friends that.

We should like to know. You always deny victimization, why do you suggest it now?

Let me show you what some of the other witnesses have to say. Take page 4, the evidence given by the chairman and secretary and members of the South African Society of Journalists. They put in a statement which should be very carefully read before members vote on this subject. They hold very strongly that—

There is not a single valid reason given throughout the whole of the evidence before the Select Committee as to why this clause should be introduced into our law. There was a suggestion made that as in France everything in the newspapers should be signed. We heard what Mr. Rompel said about that, but if we look at Mr. Long’s evidence and the evidence of Mr. Green, they say definitely that the French press was a press we should in no way follow, and that the French press was a press that did no good to the country.

The Labour party have some good newspapers in France.

They may have. It is a pity the hon. member did not question these witnesses when they were before the Select Committee, because they may as in another case have given him a satisfactory reply. Turn to page 93, for their further evidence, and you will see there they were able to give a convincing reply. (Time expired.)

I think it is well this committee of the House should realize that the evidence given before the select committee in connection with the press clause was evidence given by one side only. The principle involved in this matter was debated in this House during the second reading, and it was not desired by the select committee to ask for general evidence on the principle. It could have been done if anyone had wanted it. Those parties particularly interested in this Bill gave their objection and the evidence was the evidence of interested parties only. Parties who have been to a certain extent prejudicially affected by the operation of this clause would, it is only to be expected, give evidence which is against that clause. It is like giving evidence on the reliability for police traps by people who have been charged with exceeding the speed limit. May I suggest that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) moves in limited circles’ The reputation of the South African press for fairness and probity during elections is not general throughout South Africa and is not widespread among the people of this country. They do not believe in the press as fair. They may be wrong, but they do not believe in it. If the hon. member still believes that they do, I would suggest that he should go amongst the working classes and ask their opinion of the papers of this country. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in his last speech said that the evidence given by the editor of “Die Burger” was on a certain line and that the position was rather awkward for him. The inference, I take it, is that this is a paper supporting the Government and that it would be very awkward if he were to give evidence against the Bill. May I point out that the other press support the Opposition, and that it might therefore have been awkward for them if they had given evidence in favour of the Bill? A specific instance which I may quote occurred the other day. A senator was elected in another place and a paper in his own constituency had the audacity, under the editorship of a certain gentleman, to have a small congratulatory paragraph. Since that paragraph appeared that editor, after years of service, has had to leave.

What paper was that?

The “Kokstad Advertiser.”

He has been promoted to a better appointment.

The information I had was that he had been dismissed.

I hear that he is going on to “The Star” staff.

He has had to leave the position that he occupied.

He has resigned.

I don’t think so.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) says that it was decided at the second reading that this principle of controlling the press should be law. All that was decided was that it was necessary to amend the electoral law, and instead of any particular clause being decided upon, these clauses were left over for the select committee and the committee of this House. With regard to the hon. gentleman’s statement that the press of this country is unfair, I think I am as good a judge as he is. I have lived in this country much longer than he has, and I have read as many newspapers, and I know as many working men as he. I saw the other day some very laudatory references to certain ministers in papers that are supposed to support the Opposition. I think the papers in this country are extremely impartial and generous in their style of reporting speeches, either during election time or any other time. Hon. members at that end who are continually complaining about the press get quite their fair share of reports, and some people think they get more than they deserve. Personally I do not grumble. The gentlemen connected with the press in this country can hold their heads high because they have a clean record. As I say, this is a question of opinion with regard to what is fair criticism, what is exaggeration, and even what is truth during the time of an election. The system that has been adopted in this country, following on the British system, is that the unity of the press is maintained and that articles appearing in the press come from the newspapers and not from an individual. I say before this is decided upon, there ought to be a very strong case made out by the Government; and so far, except for a few vague insinuations, we have heard no attempt to make out a case. This is really an attack, not so much upon the liberty of the press, although it must be extremely irritating to them, but upon the liberty of the subject, of the ordinary man who has been in the habit of expressing his opinion of candidates and Governments during an election. Surely the hon. member who is fond of standing up for the working men—and who objects to keeping them in a subordinate position with their mouths shut during elections—will be willing to allow these people to express their opinion to the press under anonymity. It is not necessary for a man to sign his name in order to express his opinion at the present time, and why it should be so in future I do not know, unless it is to try and silence people who have the right to express their views. According to the evidence there are many men in the public service who might want to /express opinions at election time, but who are debarred by the rules of the service from doing so. The Labour party used to champion these men. There are many men in subordinate positions who are afraid of expressing their opinions because of the hold their employers may have upon them. As was pointed out by one of the witnesses, there are many professional men, such as doctors, who have the right to express their opinion’s, but who, from motives of policy, and in order to protect their livelihood, feel disposed to write under a pen name. It is not everyone who can afford to sign his name to an article in a newspaper. This clause will prevent people expressing their opinions as freely as they have done in the past, and in that respect this is an attack upon the liberty of the subject. The fact of the matter is that this attempt of the Government to have a servile press, to have a press that will not criticize the Government in the newspapers, will fail; it will be futile, because criticism will go on just as before; exaggerations will go in: there is no penalty for telling a lie or for writing a gross exaggeration, or for producing an extremely offensive caricature Or cartoon. If Ministers want to control the press they will have to go much further and adopt a regular press censorship. If that is to be done in time of an election, why not do it always, so that you can have the press under control at all times? As we have seen from the evidence, the Labour party passed a futile law in Australia, trying to control the press in the same way, but it has proved a dead letter, and there is no doubt that this attempt to control the press is one that will break down, and if Ministers are determined to keep on controlling the press they will have to go very much further than they have done in this Bill.

I certainly have heard curious reasons for objecting to this clause, but the reason given by one, who, I think, as Minister of the Interior, was at one time at the head of the public service, is certainly one of the most curious. Public servants were forbidden to take part in political controversy, but he desires to keep the anonymity open, so that they may use the press, with the approval of the owners of the press, to voice their political views. That does enlighten one, perhaps, as to the views of hon. members opposite.

That is what you have contended all along. We see from the discussion why hon. members opposite take strong opposition to this clause.

But you have not. I think it was the hon. member who has just spoken who said that we were using a temporary party advantage to inflict an injury upon the party in the minority.

I said that in evidence.

You quoted it with approval.

Certainly.

I agree to this extent, that the press is a most powerful implement in the hands of those who wish to turn the development of democracy into plutocracy, and therefore I say anything we can do which will destroy that “unity of the press,” which the hon. member quoted so eloquently.

Keep your mouths shut.

No. When any of us express our opinion, the opinion may be admirable, but it also is considered in conjunction with the person who expresses that opinion. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) was saying that, if you were to go further, you have nothing in this law to prevent them printing offensive cartoons, or printing what are lies. But if the person who utters the lies has to put his name, it will be a very great deterrent to be known to the public as a habitual liar.

What has happened to the press in Russia?

I really do not know, and furthermore, I do not care. I am not attacking the gentlemen whose profession it is to be employees of the press. I never do, and I never have done so. I have attacked the press as an institution, and I look on the modern development, the syndication of the press, as the buying of public opinion. If half a dozen of us were multi-millionaires, we could buy up the press of this country, and the unity of the press. The people who read the press every day would say it is still the same press. Hon. members will remember that, in 1918, the “Daily Chronicle” was bought just before the election. The ordinary reader took up his paper, and did not know that Mr. Donald had ceased to edit it, and that someone else was put in order to give effect to a separate policy. That was a valuable instrument, so that those readers insensibly adopted the same views with the same confidence as they had got into of adopting former views. There is a growing sense in all democratic countries that the greatest danger to the free and healthy development of democracy is the syndicated press, and the fact that public opinion is dictated by those who, by their weight of money, can buy and control the press.

Hence the desire to muzzle the press.

We don’t want to muzzle it, but we say that if you are prepared to write that, sign your name to it. Many a man who takes as gospel, something in the leading article would, if it were signed John Smith, and John Smith were pointed out to him, would pay very much less attention to it, and he would be much more inclined to judge of the opinions expressed by the person who uttered those opinions. It is said that it is not the writer who speaks, but the newspapers. As if a newspaper were some living intelligent thing in itself. It is nothing of the kind. As far as I know a newspaper comes into existence and, first of all, the people who own it decide its policy and then they go into the market and engage the services of persons who, very probably have been holding the same views as theirs.

There is nothing wrong in that.

No. They do know if there were even terms on both sides, but it is only this class of people who can command big sums of money can use it to influence public opinions.

How do you account for the return of your party?

In the same way as the Liberal party in Great Britain was returned in 1906—after ‘being led by the press for a long time the public was disgusted and revolted. In 1906 the vast majority of the newspapers of Great Britain were supporting the Tory party, which had been in office for a number of years, and the people in Great Britain said they were tired of always having one side of things put before them, and they were going to think for themselves. In 1924 the people of South Africa had grown tired of taking their political views from the inspired anonymity used by the syndicated press.

That is against your own argument.

The people made up their minds not to have their views prepared for them by the syndicated press.

The Liberal party in England got into power notwithstanding the press.

The whole point of my argument is this: That the newspaper press is an institution which is essentially one that requires the control of large sums of money to work it, and if we are going to have a press at all, let us deprive it as far as possible of that unity of ideas which comes from anonymity and let us have individuals sign their names to their articles, so that the public may assess the worth of those opinions in conjunction with the character and general reputation of the person who signed those articles.

The Minister of the Interior, in introducing this Bill, told us that—the Nationalist press supports this clause.

Looking at the select committee evidence it was clear he was wrong. The Nationalist press is dead against it. They sent their foremost writers to give evidence against it, and spent time and money in fighting this clause. Yesterday morning, there was an article in “Die Burger” which reads as follows—

That is the opinion of “Die Burger,” which the Minister told us was in favour of it. It is clear that nobody wants this clause on the Nationalist side. The Minister told us in the second reading debate that he wished to protect the people intellectually and spiritually at election times. That was the reason assigned by the Minister in this House. Not long ago, however, he made a speech at the coffee house, where he started abusing the English press and Reuters of partiality and distortion, and went on to say—

So this altruistic desire to raise the people intellectually and spiritually is not the real motive, the real motive is contained in the coffee house speech. It is simply designed as a political vendetta, a party feud. He was annoyed because certain Nationalist party meetings were not sufficiently reported, and thus we have it on record that it should not transcend the powers of the Nationalist party to curb the South African party press. This clause is one more example of the system of hobby horse legislature that we have had this session. The press and the public do not want it. It is simply a fal-lal and a foible of the Minister personally. We have the similar instances in the Minimum Wages Bill and the colour bar Bill and the Diamond Control Bill, which nobody wanted and which were mere personal hobbies of certain Ministers.

The press didn’t want it.

No, the press is dead against it. I would point out to the Minister that making journalists and correspondents and politicians sign everything they write is not going to remedy the position. I have here a document signed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He has got his photo on it. It is not the one with the hon. I merely want to emphasize the fact that signing articles is not going to introduce this higher standard of political morality in the country which the Minister thinks. Here is an article signed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in which he accuses the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) of complicity in bombing women and children at Kuruman.

Shame.

I say shame, too.

Read it.

I will read it—

It is a shameful, disgraceful innuendo.

We have stopped it.

You have stopped the deliberate bombing of innocent women and children?

I said they should not carry live bombs.

No, the Minister should be honest. He levelled a deliberate accusation against the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) of bombing innocent women and children.

I said they did not take precautions against that.

Be a man and stick to your guns. Don’t try to wriggle out of it.

There is no wriggling out of it.

I say the Minister deliberately accused the right hon. gentleman of bombing innocent women and children.

That is untrue.

Is the hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) justified in saying that I deliberately accused the right hon. the member for Standerton of dropping bombs on innocent women and children? I deliberately accused him, as Prime Minister of this country, of not taking precautions to prevent these machines carrying live bombs when they were on demonstration flights.

Does the hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) withdraw what he said?

No.

On a point of order, the hon. member said that my hon. friend deliberately accused the hon. member for Standerton of deliberately allowing bombs to, be dropped on women and children. I want to know, in face of the denial of my hon. friend, whether the hon. member is in order in adhering to his statement?

I think that is an offensive utterance which ought to be withdrawn.

I withdraw that, in deference to the Chairman’s ruling.

Order.

The hon. member must withdraw it without any qualification of that sort.

I made no qualification. I withdraw it because I always submit to the Chairman’s ruling, but I am going on

On a point of order, was the hon. member withdrawing it without qualification when he added that the reason he withdrew it was because he always submitted to your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

The hon. member is entitled to say that.

I am quite in order. I am not now going to put any construction on it. I am going to leave the House to put its own construction on it.

Read the context.

I will read the context. It is this?—the article goes on to say—

It is signed “Thomas Boydell.” I am not going to put any personal construction on this, but I ask this House to tell we what construction they put on it. Let me read again

I leave it to the House to say with what intention and innuendo the Minister wrote these words. Making people sign things of this sort is not going to introduce the spirit of courtesy into public life that the Minister of the Interior has told us of.

In regard to this particular clause under discussion, I am speaking with some knowledge of the press in South Africa, having been connected with it, more or less, for half-a-century. I can only say that undoubtedly it will prove futile, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has stated. So, if one acknowledges that it must be futile, one asks why should it be there? We ask ourselves why should we support it being in the act? It has become necessary as a measure of protest in this country against the ultra-British press. That press has desecrated the tradition of fair play that has always been the pride of British people. It is a very sad thing to have to admit that this press with its great tradition has come down in this way. It is because it has become the possession of wealthy men. They have bought that press, and they run it exactly as they run their race horses on race courses. They run them not for the love of sport but for their own object of profit. Just as their horses are pulled or run out, so they run the press they own. Jockeys ride to order, and pressmen write to owners’ desires.

It is absolutely wrong.

Are you judging others by yourself?

I know several fine journalists who respected themselves and their profession, and I have seen them put out, one after another, in the street, because they did not write to suit the owners.

You have never seen it in the Cape Town press.

When you talk about the Cape Town press, what glorious traditions it had in the days of Noble and St. Ledger. Where are those traditions to-day?

They are just as high as ever they were.

I am delighted to see that resentment because it shows that there is an expectancy of fair play in regard to the press in the mind of the hon. gentleman. I hope that spirit will prevail. We could give the names of people who own this press, and we know what we have suffered under it. No doubt clever lawyers will be employed to defend these newspapers, and any fines imposed on them will be willingly paid, but here is our protest against this unfair ultra-British press. I am one of those who have suffered injustice from it. I have had the admission of an editor of one of these newspapers that it published a deliberate lie in regard to myself, and I said—

and he said—

And I said—

What paper was that.

It was in the press in Pretoria.

Do you want all the information?

Yes.

I can give you the names of seven men—fine fellows all of them, who ventured to have their own opinions and considered that the public were entitled to know those opinions, but they were dismissed. I know of one paper, owned by a great capitalist, who allowed his paper to be run in a democratic way, until he got people believing in its sincerity, and as soon as a general election came on, the gentlemen who would not write to order were given a holiday for two months. We have had nothing but misrepresentation. I do not complain to the extent that some others do. There was one cartoonist who insulted the Voortrekkers of this country continuously, and I am perfectly certain his cartoons made many hundreds of recruits for the Nationalist party. It is to the ultra-British press that hon. members opposite owe their defeat. They ceased to be fair, and would not give fair play for public opinion, and it was for that reason that the debacle overtook the South African party.

We want to save you from yourselves.

Why should hon. members opposite be so anxious to stand up for the owners of this press, and say we shall not have these penalties and these conditions. If they are going to be futile, and if the press is so honest that they can simply show what is done, why not simply say, we are so satisfied with the way in which we run our party newspapers that we are perfectly content that we should have any penalties and any conditions, and we will show that we have nothing to be afraid of. But their fear of this clause is due to a guilty mind. It is because they know they have never given fair play to the leading men of this country, and have prostituted their press simply for the money put up to buy it, and they stand up now and impudently talk about the freedom of the press! Really the licence of the press. If we could once more get back to the position that we could get newspapers not run by people simply rushing for money and control, then this control would be utterly unnecessary. We have come to the time when rich men can buy up newspapers, and buy the brains to run them. [Time expired.]

If the reputation of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is as good as the reputation of the editors of the Cape Town papers then he will be likely to take up a better position in the eyes of the public who know his past career than he has at present.

What have you to say about, his past career?

The right hon. member should not make such an insinuation against the right hon. gentleman.

I only said the hon. gentleman has maligned the reputation of the responsible representatives of the press here who have not the opportunity of defending themselves.

If the hon. gentleman said no more than that, he is entitled to say it.

I consider they have a very high reputation indeed. If the hon. member for Pretoria West stands as high in the public eye as those gentlemen then he will hold a very proud position.

You made a very ungentlemanly remark.

Don’t lose your temper.

Can’t you make an apology for a very dirty remark—can’t you make an apology like a gentleman?

On a point of order, is the Minister entitled to refer to a dirty remark?

The Minister is not entitled to say that either.

Am I not entitled to ask him to apologize for a very unworthy remark?

What the hon. gentleman for Fort Beaufort says he said, sounds different from what he originally stated, but we must accept his word.

The Minister gets into such a state of excitement—I may almost say a white heat—that it is very difficult to understand him. From the condition in which he has worked himself up to to-night I am inclined to think that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is incorrect. He has laid to the charge of the Minister of the Interior the idea of this Bill, but I am now inclined to think from the dictatorial attitude of my friend opposite that he and his Labour friends have forced the Bill on to the Minister of the Interior.

Imported it from Moscow.

I was much interested in reading some of the evidence, because I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said that the intention of the Bill was to clip the wings of the South African party. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) talked about a desire to introduce high principles into this debate. Has he introduced those principles into the paper which has been so distinguished lately under his editorship and which has already issued a public apology and which I understand is now considering a further apology in connection with another misstatement he made?

No, he is not. Tell the truth for once if you can.

I would like to devote my attention: to the Minister of Defence. The editor of the “Argus,” Mr. Green, said—

That has come in Russia, and it is coming here too. My hon. friend is sympathetic to the attitude of the Soviet in Russia. There is no person more autocratic than those people who assume to themselves the leadership of the proletariat if they come into power. The hon. member’s party has brought pressure to bear on the Minister of the Interior. If you get what this clause asks for, preventing people expressing their views without signing their names those people are going to be ostracised and penalized in this country, and for that reason we want anonymity from the press. It is not the editor. There are a large number of people who want to express their opinions in the press without signing their names. By the attitude of the gentlemen sitting over there, if they sign their names to articles not palatable to them, they would receive treatment that would certainly not be the proper treatment. We know this is one of the reasons actuating those hon. gentlemen in introducing a clause of this character. If there is one thing I should have thought a gentleman in the position: of my hon. friend, who is always supporting the liberty of the people, would stand fast for, it is the liberty of the press which is essential to the rights of people to express their views without being penalized for so doing. When was it we made a great stand in this country for the liberty of the press? Just 100 years ago. All that time we have gone on with a free press and now you propose to introduce a clause in the Bill which I believe will do a great deal to prevent people in inferior positions from expressing their opinions. I know my hon. friend is a martinet and an autocrat when he has an opportunity of expressing his opinions to this Committee. It is the last thing in the world we should like to see that these people should bring the wrath of our hon. friend on themselves. This Committee has the power to defend itself, but if he is going to bring his wrath on those people who have not the power to protect themselves they are going to have a bad time. It is unworthy of the hon. member to impugn the characters of editors and their reporters. I can speak with years of experience and knowledge and I say that whatever party the member belongs to, hon. members addressing this House or public meetings get a fair and reasonable report of what they say.

No, No.

A very fair and reasonable report of what they say, more than they get in many other countries. [Time expired.]

I wish to put the right hon. gentleman right on one or two points. In the first place you can perfectly, reasonably and legitimately attack the press without attacking the probity of the editors and those who conduct the press.

That is casuistry.

The late Mr. Massingham, one of the most respected journalists in Great Britain was forced to go from the “Daily Chronicle” because his views did not coincide with the owners of the press. Consequently it results in this, that those who have enough money to own the press can choose the persons, and by a process of ordinary selection, can practically limit the profession of journalism in the lucrative posts to those who hold the views which those who own the press hold, and those who hold different views to those who own the press have not the opportunity of getting on. My hon. friend over there referred to a number of well-known cases in this country—cases where because an editor did not hold the views that were, in the eyes of those who owned the press, the views which that paper was owned in order to propagate, his livelihood had to come to an end.

He gave no names.

He did not mention the name of a single one. Let him mention a name and we can refute it.

Isn’t that a matter of common knowledge? I have mentioned Mr. Massingham in Great Britain. Has the hon. member never heard of Mr. Donald of the “Daily Chronicle”, or Mr. Pakeman, has he never heard of Mr. Cartwright? I am not going to argue on what is a matter of commonplace knowledge.

We don’t accept it.

The public and those who know will certainly agree that it is the truth. Another point on which I want to correct the hon. member is this. I Would like him when he comes here and says that if my hon. friend had the same reputation, the same gifts of character, as those who own the press, he would have a higher reputation than his previous career has given him—when he makes that remark he will kindly remember that the innuendo is that there is something disgraceful in my hon. friend’s career, and I think it would be more in conformity with the traditions of public life if the hon. member, in his excitement, did not make those unworthy insinuations, which, when he is called to order, he is compelled to paraphrase and avoid the words that he actually used. When I have occasionally had to be called to order I have been perfectly willing, to withdraw it, but I have never tried to sneak out of it.

Order. The hon. member should not use that expression.

I won’t use that. I will substitute that I have never endeavoured to get out of the blame for what I have said by asserting that I used other words than I did.

Did you bring pressure on the Minister of the Interior to bring in that clause?

Not a bit. I was delighted when he came forward with his proposal. Let us be clear. Hon. members over there are perfectly entitled to hold and to fight for their view of the liberty of the press, but what they are really fighting for is not the liberty of the press, is not the liberty of the subject; it is for the privilege which wealth gives of diverting public opinion to the views held by wealth. I am very strongly against a country being ruled by mere power of money. I believe in every country, not only here, that there is a growing feeling that the power of the press is a great danger to the free development of democracy. I do not think this goes far enough. I believe that the evil is greater than can be met by this. If I had my way I would certainly like to see an attempt made to carry out the suggestion of Mr. Spender of the “Westminster Gazette” that there should be a very heavy penalty imposed upon any person who had pecuniary interest direct or indirect in more than one daily organ of the public press. If you can prevent the syndicating of it then you will revert to the days when the press was really a valuable critic of public affairs. The “Times”, bore the same relation to Delane as the pulpit bears to the man who occupies it. Each organ was a separate organ whose influence depended upon the talents upon the statesmanlike qualities of the man who edited that organ. To-day a tremendous change has taken place. Here in this country I do not know how many groups there are—probably one or two. In Great Britain, as everyone knows, outside of a very few papers you can say the press is controlled by a couple of newspaper men. That development is fraud with very great danger to the real determination of the people’s destiny by the people themselves and not by just a handful of people.

What you are saying now has nothing to do with this clause.

Yes it has. It concerns the signing of articles, the destruction of the anonymity of the press, the destruction of that subtle something which accompanies anonymity. Let us say who it is who says it. The “Star” is not a person; the London “Times” is not a person. We want to know by whom it is written so that we may judge what weight to attach to it.

I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

No, no.

Here we are sitting every night, five nights a week; you cannot go on like this.

We have a lot of work to do.

This is not the way to do it,

You are not going to get on like this. It is far better to adjourn now and start afresh to-morrow. I move—

No, no.

I am very sorry that I am not able to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). After the speeches we have listened to I must say that there is a good deal of liveliness in the House and no one seems to have the desire of going to sleep. The speeches which have been made to-day in connection with this matter are for a great part a repetition of speeches which were made here during the debate on the second reading, and so far at any rate in the debate there has been precious little new and for this reason I think it is unnecessary to give more facilities to the House. If there are hon. members who still wish to speak let us continue. I think that we should not only get this section but we should get the whole Bill through committee to-night.

Things have not been so lively in the House for some considerable time; therefore, I, for one, have no objection to sitting here all night under circumstances of this kind. It appears to me that much of the opposition to sub-clause (b) of Clause 44 arises from the fact that many of our so-called political leaders—

I should have stated that I understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

May I appeal to my hon. friend. He referred to remarks being made such as were made on the second reading debate. May I say that the only one who has trespassed in that respect was the Minister of Defence. Both his speeches were in every way the same as what he said on the second reading. I challenge hon. members to say that anything I said could have been claimed to be a second reading speech. Surely quoting evidence given before the select committee on this Bill is not possible on a second reading debate. Is the Minister afraid to hear the rest of the evidence?

You are the only conscientious member.

There are 93 pages of evidence solely on this point. As far as I am concerned, I have never stated a word this evening that could have been stated on the second reading debate. If the Minister is not going to give us a fair opportunity to debate this very important evidence, he must expect us to continue as long as we consider it necessary to continue. We are not going to be intimidated by taunts from the other side. I am going to say what I intend to say, and nothing but the closure will stop me.

Order. I do not know whether the hon. member meant it when he said: “If the Chairman is not going to give me the opportunity.”

I am sorry. I meant the Minister. I apologize if you think I meant you. The select committee sat for months and went through the evidence very carefully, and surely we have a right to debate on the evidence. This is the one clause in the Bill which is of great importance and we started discussing it at 10 o’clock to-night, the House having sat late two nights this week, it is not fair that we should be kept late to-night. Surely the Minister should give us an opportunity of debating the Bill when we are able to do so in a proper way.

I hope the Minister will agree to the amendment. This is not the way to push business through. This is one of the most important clauses we have dealt with this session. It affects the liberty of the subject to a very wide degree.

There is plenty of time.

Hon. members opposite are inclined to be jocular. The forcing of an all-night sitting without notice is a species of gag. The Minister has not only fried to gag the press, but this House.

The word “gag” should not be used. It is not parliamentary.

I am sorry; I will withdraw it, and will substitute “to curtail the rights of the public and to infringe the rights of free discussion.” To begin an important discussion like this at 10 o’clock at night and, without notice to anyone, to force an all-night sitting is not treating the House or the officials with the consideration they deserve. The Minister cannot accuse us of obstruction on the Bill. A large section of the public feels that this is despotism in a very bad form. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, with his Russian proclivities may laugh, but it is despotism. I know of no democratic country in the world where such a clause is being enforced. It is a dead letter in Australia and has been repealed in France, yet the Minister wants to bludgeon it through the House. We are supposed to’ be a freedom-loving country.

We had proof of that in 1922.

The only people who had no liberty were those who wanted to bomb the police. Hon. members must admit that this is a most contentious clause; it emanates, from the Minister and a few Labour members, but is not wanted by the public.

I hope that the Minister will not listen to members opposite. They have now been arguing for nearly three-quarters of an hour about this proposal which has nothing to do with the section. The Minister was very patient in allowing so much opportunity for discussing this section, and if we have to go on in this way we shall not be finished for a very long time. We have much work for the House to do, and if hon. members opposite think that it is hard on them, then it is also hard on us. They came here for “lots of fun.” We came to do work.

It is all very well for the hon. member to speak in the way he has spoken just now. I don’t think he knows what has taken place in the House to-day. During the day when the customs duties were under discussion and when this Bill was under discussion there were only ten nationalist members on that side and not a single Labour member was in the House, including only one Minister in the House. We have had to sit here the whole day while the Government supporters were in the tearooms and lobbies, and feel the strain of it, and I think the Minister might agree to the motion and allow us to go home.

I hope the Minister’s stubbornness in this matter does not mean that it is a case of—

It is unfortunate if we are to be punished for the sins of others; it is only fair that we should be shown some consideration and that we should return to this legislation in a proper frame of mind. I do appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter, I hope he will see that no good purpose is being served by going on at this hour. Everyone has been taken unawares and we don’t want an all-night sitting with the officers of the House without previous warning obliged to sit up all night.

Motion put and Mr. Jagger called for a division.

Oh no, it is a waste of time.

Very well, I withdraw that.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I am sure the Minister of Defence, if he had read the evidence, would have found that, with the opportunity given to his own representatives on the committee and with the opportunity given to other representatives of the Pact party, they had every opportunity but did not in any way try to refute the statements made by the editors that in no way were the editors or reporters bound by any instructions given by any proprietor.

Hear, hear.

Then why did the Minister make that statement?

I did not.

I took it down You said—

No, on a point of order, I absolutely deny having used the word “instructions” at all. What I said, was that those who control the press pick out as editors the men who hold their views find the result is that men who do not hold their views will not be able to get their living in journalism.

According to the rules of the House, I must accept the hon. member’s statement, but it is very strange that, immediately after he made that statement he went on to give examples of those who had lost their positions.

May I explain again? Those were occasions on which the owners of the press had been guilty of an error of judgment in assessing precisely the views of those whom they engaged.

It is a pity you did not state that when you made the statement. According to the rules of the House, however, as I previously said, I must accept the Minister’s explanation. I trust the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) in turn will not challenge this statement. He said—

Let me give him an example or two of truth by members of his party. The chairman of the committee in cross-examining one of the witnesses, referred to a meeting at Hermanus of which a report as he stated was sent not by Reuter but by two supporters of the S.A.P. One of the witnesses, Mr. Long, said he could top that, and he went on—

That is rather interesting.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) wrote this—

He put his name to it?

Oh, yes. He put his name to it: that is quite correct; but wait a moment. This is what he said afterwards, and he had to sign this also—

In addition he paid £50 as damages and the costs. When you tell the truth at the point of a revolver it is very easy and not much to boast about. The less these hon. gentlemen have to say about truth and the purity of the press the better for everybody concerned. I referred to the evidence of certain members of the Dutch press. I was careful to refer to the section which supports the Minister and his party, but there are other members who gave evidence also. Mr. Rompel says—

That is very strong evidence but it goes on—I think during election times, correspondents would object to publishing their names.

And I might add here, to the Minister, that so far as his own paper is concerned, they are going to suffer more than the Opposition press; because there are many persons who correspond with the paper and cannot risk signing their names, and I can give several extracts of the evidence expressing fear of losing these correspondents. Several of the country correspondents of “Die Burger” could not possibly sign their names to these articles, because the position would be made impossible for them. Many, we are told, are clergymen and school-teachers. Mr. Rompel explains that if they lose this class of correspondent they will not get the valuable information they now get and the paper will not be so interesting to the public as it is at present, also that if every article had to be signed you would get the same position as with the French press where the newspapers only give the opinions of certain individuals.

That is what they do now.

Mr. Rompel stated that it is not in the interests of the correspondents to have his name disclosed to the public. There was not a word of evidence to show that in any way the reporters or the editors were not free to do as they thought right or that they were not above suspicion of doing anything in the interests of any particular party only Mr. Rompel states—

That is a far-reaching remark and I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) whom I want to say was very fair in the attitude he adopted in the Select Committee, will admit that the evidence given there was very strong.

(Midnight.)

The evidence was so strong that no one could come away retaining any idea that anything was done by reporters whereby the facts of any case were in any way distorted. The editors gave the reporters a splendid testimonial and I think that was accepted by the Committee, and if it was not accepted why was not a single witness cross-examined on that point? The editors made a strong claim to maintain the liberty of the press and the only quibble in regard to this was raised by the editor of “Die Burger.” [Time expired.]

The hon. member has been taking great pains to try to prove that the press, as a whole, is opposed to the clause, but I would submit that much of the opposition arises from the fact that many of our so-called political leaders in this country will not be able to maintain their reputation for fluent public speaking in the future as they have been able to do in the past. It may be taken for granted that at least 100 persons read the report of a speech or meeting in the press for everyone who attends the meeting personally. It has therefore become a recognised practice for certain politicians at election time to carefully prepare their speeches, have them typewritten and hand them to the reporter before the meeting starts, with the result that the orations appear in the next morning’s paper all beautifully in order and punctuated with liberal “applause” and “hear, hear” Those particular individuals thereby obtain a reputation as public speakers that they do not deserve. Before I had the honour to sit in this House, I was a linotype operator on a very prominent newspaper in Natal, and I had the pleasure on one occasion of assisting to set up three columns of a speech of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) two days before it was delivered.

I have made many speeches, but I have never yet handed a written speech to any newspaper, and I say unhesitatingly that what the hon. member states is absolutely and entirely devoid of foundation.

Should the hon. member not withdraw his imputation?

The hon. gentleman has asked me to withdraw something which is perfectly true, and I will not withdraw it. It was in 1914 or 1915, when the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort was leader of the old Unionist party. It was then decided by a few friends of that party here in Cape Town to stir up the dry bones of their organization, and they arranged to put out “A Clarion Call to the Country.” The right hon. member’s three column speech was headed in this way, and the report was sent up to this particular newspaper by Reuter’s agency with instructions that it was not to be released for publication until a telegram was received from Cape Town. Reuters evidently did not think the speech of sufficient importance to send it over the wires.

It was not a speech, but a manifesto.

A wire was despatched of the evening of the afternoon the speech was made in Cape Town, reading—

The report was then published with the following introduction—

The other day the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) presided and made an opening speech at a meeting here in Cape Town. If this clause had been in force, then the name appearing in the press at the bottom of the press report of that speech would have been that of Maj. van Zyl. I cannot help thinking that much of the dislike shown towards this particular clause is due to the disturbing factor that many of our friends will in future have their speeches published in the public press as delivered and not from carefully prepared manuscript.

I was also on the select committee, but unfortunately not to the end, and I must say that I am surprised that the Minister still persists with the section. The evidence before the select committee was unanimously against it, and I cannot understand why the section is still there. Now the hon. Minister wishes to push it through in the middle of the night. I think it is very unfair. What wrong has then been done by the press to them to make hon. members opposite so hostile to it? They sit on the Government benches. They can be thankful to the press. I think it is unfair to want to push such an important matter through in the middle of the night. I protest against it and again appeal to the Minister to allow this section to stand over.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). He was a member of the select committee, but went home on a holiday. Now he comes here and argues that we should not work in the night. Does the interest of the people then come after his own convenience? He comes here again to-night crying that he cannot go to bed at 11 o’clock. His electors should be ashamed of him putting the interests of the country after his convenience. This section is necessary and the more I hear the screaming from the opposite side, the more I think that it is necessary. The shoe fits them and that is why they put it on. Members go travelling on holiday and then they come here and make a speech and let their electors see that they are here again.

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) because I thought the disclosure he made of what he must have learned from the contributors to his newspaper was most interesting. He no doubt obtained their consent to make the disclosure.

Don’t be childish, you are just like a little child.

He referred to the details of these speeches which were supplied in advance and said they were complete to the words “applause” and to the last comma. He did not refer to there being any reference to ready made jokes. That is the prerogative of the Minister of the Interior. When he read his speech at the second reading it was apparent he had many interesting jokes interpolated, probably with the assistance of the midnight oil.

We don’t give away professional secrets either.

Coining back to the merits of this Bill, the Minister when addressing the House on the second reading said in regard to the details of the Bill, he thought they should be referred to the select committee. When he made his charges against the newspaper press of South Africa, he must have known, grave and serious as they were, that it would be necessary to substantiate them with evidence before the select committee. One would have thought that was the least thing he would have done. Without going back to the principles referred to on the second reading, I want to refer to some of the statements made by the Minister and I want to ask the Minister to say how far there was evidence called before his select committee to support it. If the Minister cannot justify his statements by evidence, we are faced with the position that they are then only an opinion held by himself, is he justified, with in the face of that position, is he justified, with the assistance of the temporary majority he has in the House, in dragooning through the House a measure that will affect the whole of the press of the country? I want to come back to the merits of the Bill and eliminate the distracting efforts of hon. members on my left, which no doubt represent the high-water mark of their understanding of this Bill. The Minister of the Interior, in introducing the second reading of this Bill, referred to the “new journalism” and described it in language which was almost lurid. I wonder where he got his experience of this “new journalism”? He said, as reported in Hansard (col. 2102)—

We may, perhaps, accept that statement from the Minister, coming as he did fresh from the editorial chair. He now wants to confer upon the newspapers of the country another blessing, a very doubtful blessing. He said—

Without any further identification, we know precisely what newspaper he refers to there. He went on to say that newspapers—

He did not say that. He read it.

I am sorry. He was reading one of those carefully prepared speeches, interlarded with jokes. He continued—

Now it is this allegation that newspapers are to be found in South Africa which manipulate public opinion and give partial or misleading or false information which, if we were in a court of law—I am glad we are not—would be called the charge. [Time expired.]

We have had a lecture from the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) about giving information which he gathered whilst in the service of an employer who was dealing with the customer of a paper. The first objection to the hon. member’s speech was by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who said that the information was incorrect and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) also said the information was incorrect. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and those who sit on that side have made more Bolshevists in this country than any Labour man can ever make. The hon. member and those associated with him—it is their actions in using the Union Jack for party purposes—

What has this to do with Clause 44?

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort challenges the accuracy of the statement first of all, but when driven out of that trench—

I challenge the accuracy of it now and say it is absolutely incorrect.

Let us get to our friends the newspapers. Hon. members sitting on that side, when they are not speaking within the hearing of the reporters, will express some very detrimental opinions in regard to the press, but there is a lack of moral courage amongst a lot of people to stand up and say what they think of the press for fear that they would be cut out of the newspapers. Some members of this House are very fond of the press, and they make friends with the reporters. I have seen it happen and, may I say, I am not accusing anyone party of that, but there are some individuals who really are afraid of the press. The press has a tremendous amount of power. What we are trying to do, as I said in an interjection just now, is to introduce legislation into our political machine which will, as far as we possibly can, compel all newspapers, irrespective of party, to tell the truth. We have to deal with the head-line artist. That is one of the greatest troubles we have to deal with to-day. These men are specially skilled in the art of head-line writing, so that people who have not time to read the reports will read the headlines, and gather an entirely different impression of what has been said. Take this little bit here. It is headed—

Anyone reading these headlines would think that Mr. Tielman Roos’ hopes for the future were that the best posts would be filled by Afrikanders. As a matter of fact, the gentleman who made the speech was not Mr. Tielman Roos. It was another M.L.A., but the headlines would lead one to believe it was Mr. Tielman Roos.

Who is the other M.L.A.?

If the hon. member is really anxious, if he comes to me privately I will tell him all about it. Over a cup of coffee, if he will stand the coffee. Let us take another little humourous illustration. The “Star” came out with big headlines—

The impression given was that Gen. Muller had made this statement, but reading down the report one sees that the chairman of the meeting had stated that voting for Waterston was like taking a No. 9 pill. In the same report we find it given as—

Have you ever taken a Doan’s backache pill?

This is the sort of thing that takes place. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was so much taken up with these headlines that he went all: over the country speaking about the No. 9 pills of the Pact. Your headline artist is responsible for a great deal of misrepresentation. Hon. members on that side have made a statement that money is not used to buy or corrupt the press. If money is used to purchase a newspaper by any political party in this or any other country, in order that that newspaper shall forward the interests of that party, that is buying the paper for the purpose of corrupting the true function of the press. The true function is to give people true news of what is happening. The chief function to-day is to give them views, not news.

What about “Forward”?

I make no distinction. Some years ago I said the same thing, as to every paper owned by a political party for that purpose. I say that newspapers owned by political organizations for the purpose of political. propaganda are coloured by the views of the people who own them, irrespective of the party. That is one of the dangers. [Time expired.]

I want to refute one argument that the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) used in support of this clause, he trotted out what he called the “disgraceful example” of the autocratic methods of the South African party. He told us that the editor of the Kokstad paper had been sacked, turned but into the street, because he dared to congratulate Mr. Tod in the columns of his paper on being elected a senator. It so happens that I have had a long letter from the editor only the day before yesterday. He is a personal friend of mine. He said that he had been placed in a difficult position over this matter. When the wire reached him that Tod had been elected, he thought, as I have no doubt that every decent man thought, that he had been elected in the interests of the South African party.

No. That is not what he said.

He said in his letter, he naturally inserted an article congratulating Mr. Tod. Once he had taken up that position it is rather a difficult matter to withdraw. He went on to tell me he had been five years in Kokstad, and felt he should look to the future, and he had been offered a good post, I think it was on the “Hand Daily Mail,” he had, although rather reluctantly, decided to accept it. I certainly agree with him. I think he is quite right to take this step. He went on to say that although he had been attacked by one or two parties over his attitude, the proprietress of the paper had written to him thoroughly upholding his attitude from beginning to end. He is leaving the paper and the district with an expression of real regret, both from those connected with the paper and from the inhabitants of the district. This is father different from the statement that he had been sacked. I hope the hon. member will withdraw that statement, or else will substantiate it. I have not risen to join in the discussion on the clause; I have risen to refute a statement, and I hope the House will accept my word that the statement is not correct.

There are two points I want to deal with. For the “umteenth” time in this session, an article I wrote about a member of the “Cape Times.” staff has been quoted. I signed my name to that article, and all this clause asks for is that any man who makes an attack on another man at an election time should sign his name. I was editor of a paper for some years, and I never attacked a man without signing my name to the article.

Your attacks are below the belt.

About the editor of the Kokstad paper. I heard that he was leaving the paper, and I went to the one person whom I thought would give me the most accurate information, the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). He told me he had been sacked.

I did not allude to the hon. member’s statement before. I hope I shall not hurt the hon. member’s feelings; but these are the facts. When I came to this House one of my friends here said to me that I should be careful of the hon. member for Umbilo, who edits a paper in Durban. There he said that it was a rag, but he warned me to be careful of any statement I might make to him as I might be held up to ridicule in the columns of this paper. It is not the act of a gentleman, so I have always understood, to repeat a lobby conversation. It is quite correct that the hon. member for Umbilo said—

I have never gone fishing and caught such a large fish with such a small bait. A man takes what he hears in the lobby at his own risk.

Why did you not tell him the truth?

If a man asks me a question I am perfectly entitled to make a joke at that man’s expense. I only suggest that when hon. members come to this House and make sweeping charges against proprietors of newspapers on a chance word of that sort—

I asked you specifically.

And I said “Sacked,” not supposing that the hon. member would come to the House and repeat it as a fact. I should have thought that he would have substantiated a statement like that before publishing it.

You were not telling the truth in the first instance.

Of course, I said it as a joke, and hon. members are evidently taking it as a joke, from the laughter it has caused. I hope the next time the hon. member wants news from me he will tell me he wants to use it, and I will guarantee to tell the truth, but if he asks me in the fashion that he did before, he will get his leg pulled again. It is a breach of the etiquette in this House to use a lobby conversation in this House.

I think what the hon. member is telling us is that before we accept a statement of his in future, we must swear him in to tell the whole truth. Surely when the hon. member interjected that my hon. friend had made a wild statement and that they were not aware of the fact, he should have remained silent instead of challenging my friend to speak the truth in the House in future. There is a temptation for a little exaggeration in the House, but not out there in the lobby in one’s calm and sober moments.

Do not stop your moral homily. It is Satan rebuking sin.

We cannot get away from the fact that there is no newspaper of any importance in the country, and I should say in the empire, to-day, that is not owned and controlled by some political organization or political interest: that is not for the good of the country. The newspapers are a tremendous danger to the peace and well-being of the citizens of the country, because, in order to secure party advantages, we find the newspapers magnify a statement by some member of a particular party, who may be one we do not take a great deal of notice of in ordinary circumstances, but the statement is sent throughout the country and bad feeling is created, for example, between Dutch and English. These statements, magnified for party purposes, some times cause opposition between employer and employee, or between different classes of the country. Everything is done to prejudice the community against the working class. During the troubles on the Witwatersrand, the newspapers were shrieking about the Bolshevik influence, and the brutalities by the men on the Witwatersrand, although a short time before they had been praising them for their brave deeds in France. They provided a lot of stuff that was entirely untrue. Take the “Cape Times” for instance. If I were a man of wealth, that would give me standing and respectability, and I could have run the “Cape Times” in for thousands of pounds, for libel. They had a leading article, unsigned, in which they said I organized the commandoes on the Rand, that I supplied the arms and ammunition, appointed all the officers, and actually carried out the Brakpan manouvres, and the only thing was that I was not present when the murders were committed.

What did the commission say?

The commission’s report does not bear out that libellous statement, and yet hon. members stand up and speak as if these newspapers were paragons of virtue.

Why did you not sue them?

The newspapers have not been able to do me any damage. My opinion of libel actions is that those people who believe a thing before a libel action, will still believe it afterwards. The mere fact of getting money or an apology does not clear anybody’s character. The newspapers cannot hurt me, but I am using this as an illustration that these newspapers have not played cricket, and these things would not be going on were it not for the fact that these newspapers are run by a particular political party, and do everything they can to damage the individual and, by doing that, they hit at the party which the newspaper opposes. I do not complain of newspaper criticism. Let us come to the question of anonymous letters. If a man wishes to express his opinion in the newspapers, let him have the courage of his convictions and sign the letter. Why should we take up the cudgels for an individual who has not sufficient backbone to sign his name to his opinions about other people. Hon. members opposite say there are many professional men and men whose employers may have a hold on them, civil servants and so forth, who would lose their liberty if this clause were passed. Well, if there is a professional man who wishes to express his opinion on public affairs, or on any candidate, let him do as every other man has to do, suffer for his opinions, and if he is not prepared to do that, he is not entitled to use the columns of the newspaper to stab, in the back, people who do not know him. It is assassination. I have no sympathy whatever for any man who wishes to attack another person when he is afraid to sign his name. If the civil servants wish to take part in politics the restrictions placed on them should be removed and they should write openly, but do not encourage them to write anonymous letters to the press. As to employees afraid to sign their names to letters hon. members opposite have always denied that there has been victimization of men for expressing their opinions. We get letters signed—

The writer of which probably has never been the member’ of a Union. Another letter may be signed—

The writer of which has probably always worn trousers. If we are to be attacked let it be done openly and above board.

Anyone listening to the last speech cannot doubt that the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) was perfectly sincere in supporting this clause. I give credit to the Minister of Defence for holding perfectly honest views in this matter, but I ask both of them whether they think it is possible properly to discuss a matter of this importance in the heated atmosphere which has been engendered in this House to-night. I want tp discuss the question on its merits. The time which has been spent on the Bill is not nearly sufficient to enable us to discuss it impartially, and one despairs of trying to create the proper atmosphere under the conditions under which we are now sitting. The Minister of Defence has more than once declaimed against what he called the syndicated press, but that is not the question we are considering to-night. We are considering the effect of the press during elections. The Minister in his second reading speech took up a very high attitude; I believe he felt the responsibility of what he is doing. Does he expect us to discuss this question with anything like finality under to-night’s conditions? The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) said the evidence taken before the select committee was all on one side. We had evidence from the master printers’ association which includes many members of every political party in South Africa and they gave us their views on the impracticability of the clause. Whose obligation was it to lead evidence in substantiation of the clause? It was the responsibility of the Minister who is endeavouring to foist the clause on to us. There was not one witness who substantiated the charge that by the adoption of this clause elections would be rendered any better or fairer. There is one aspect I wish to put to hon. members on the Cross benches who say that the signing of letters to the press will do away with the evil they are fighting against. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) has been very much in the limelight to-night in connection with his paper “The Guardian”. He signs those letters to “The Guardian”. Is he absolutely impartial in his articles? Does he do more harm by writing under the name of George Reyburn than if he wrote under a sobriquet? I ask the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), who I regard as an honest man, to tell us that Mr. George Reyburn does not colour the articles he writes.

They all do.

Do those articles not carry greater weight with their readers when they are signed George Reyburn? Does the hon. member not do far more harm so far as the political position is concerned by writing under his own name than under a sobriquet?

If those sentiments were expressed and the public were led to believe they were expressed by a South African party man they would carry ever so much more weight.

I do not think my hon. friend is candid over it. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) is a pronounced labourite, and his paper is the mouthpiece of the Labour party. There is not a man in this House who has read those articles in “The Guardian” who would dare to say that at the very least they are highly coloured, exaggerated and, in many instances, inaccurate. You will admit they are coloured with a view to getting Labour votes?

You had better ask the hon. member himself.

No, I ask you. They succeed because George Reyburn signs the articles. What made “Die Burger”? The fact that people knew that Dr. Malan wrote its leaders. Did he always make his statements without exaggeration? Did he ever have a party bias?

Never.

Never?

Only once and then he apologized.

I ask you this: Would it have made any difference if he had signed his name? The Minister of Defence is too honest to believe this is not a fact. All this talk about signing articles is pure balderdash. The fact is he would do more harm than if he had written anonymously. I have a lot to say on this but I would like to discuss it in a different atmosphere. Won’t the Minister let us go home and discuss it another day?

I am sincere in this statement.. During the election we got letters in “The Star”, and I like “The Star”—it is a very good paper. We got letters in “The Star” and other papers like this—

We want to know who this twenty years’ Labourite is. That would not carry any weight at all if the name of the writer was at the bottom.

And what would you do with him if you knew.

Another favourite nom-de-plume is “Disgusted Trade Unionist,” and he says—

For all we know the editor himself may have written it. It is a waste of time to answer all those gentlemen. Another will be signed “Nationalist”, another “Mother of 16”. That is what we get. What we want is the signatures, the name and address, and once you get that then the whole effect of these letters falls away and they don’t mislead anyone. If it were possible to convey the impression to the people of South Africa that articles in the “Guardian” were written by a strong supporter of the South African party it would gain more converts than if it were written by a Labour man. If the hon. member himself wrote articles for the “Guardian” and told the public the truth about the South African party, and advised everyone to become supporters of the Pact it would do a great deal of good.

Would they change the policy of the “Guardian”?

Not if he told the truth about the South African party. We are very strongly in favour of this particular clause and we want to see, it go through as it is.

If it was ever necessary to convince me of the necessity of this measure in connection with the press then the debate to-day in the House has convinced me of it. I have had experience myself—I am not speaking in regard to the newspapers with which I was connected but in general—and we all know it that the press has a long list of sins, but I did not know that the list was so large as it has appeared to be to-day from the discussion from all sides. If everything is true what hon. members have said—and I have no reason for thinking differently—then I think that we have every reason for passing the section which is now under discussion. I just want to say that I am sorry that the discussion to-day has taken this turn. We have unfortunately had a discussion here of quite a general nature about the merits and faults of newspapers and the press generally which is very little connected with the intention of this section of the Bill. I think that this discussion was unnecessary because I think everyone who judges impartially must admit that in all parts of the world, and not the least in South Africa, twisted representations are often given in the press especially at election time. Human nature is the cause that in a contest where party feelings run high matters are represented from one point of view and are only regarded from one’s own Standpoint. One oily sees matters from your own point of view, not from that of your opponent; and where so much depends on an election the tendency exists to give wrong representations. I think it is useless for hon. members to come here and say that things are not twisted. I think that the speeches to-day have not much relation to the point under discussion. Hon. members have entirely misrepresented the tendency and intention of the section, to themselves, to the House and to the country. Control over the press has constantly been mentioned and one of the hon. members on the front benches of the Opposition used the expression “muzzling the press. If hon. members carefully read the section they will see that it contains nothing of the sort. The press is still just as free as ever before. If the press wants to make a wrong representation then it can still do so just as in the past. The only alteration which is being made is that if matters are misrepresented the person who does so must bear the full responsibility before the tribunal of public opinion. He must bear the same responsibility before the court of public opinion for what he writes as he would bear if he said it at a public meeting. We want to bring the freedom of the press into line with what we usually call the freedom of speech. At a public meeting one can say what you wish and attack anyone as you wish, but because it is done openly at a public meeting, and the country knows who it is that says it, he himself bears the responsibility for it and therefore it is subject to a certain control and he does not go to such extremes as he possibly would go if he did it anonymously. That responsibility to public opinion we want to have at election time for every person who writes just as for every person; who makes a speech. That is all we ask for. That this will have a good influence is, I think, beyond question. If the name of the reporters appear under incorrect report of speeches that have been delivered in the newspapers he will himself try to be much more accurate than what has hitherto been the case and this will be for the benefit of the newspapers themselves and of the people. Just a few words more about the evidence which was given before the select committee. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has made a great point of it. Let me tell the hon. member this, that I went to the select committee to get this kind of evidence, nothing else, simply because it is quite a natural matter for anybody or individual to be opposed to being put under any supervision. The press, just like the individual, will in the nature of things object to be placed under limitations that the names of the contributors of political articles or reports shall be put under their contributions. I do not object to this, the complaint is quite natural. But I say that I expected evidence of that kind from the press. Unfortunately the pressmen who gave evidence before the select committee, started from the point of view —which I think is wrong—to, I do not wish to express it too strongly, assume that the press is infallible, that there is no intention on the part of the press to misrepresent things, to intentionally misrepresent them, that such an accusation cannot be laid to the charge of the journalist or reporters. They departed from the standpoint that they had done no wrong and that there was no danger that they would do wrong. I think that this is a point of view that I cannot accept, and the House and the country, after the experience we have had, will not accept it. I am very sorry that the pressmen did not rather take up another attitude, viz., to assist the select committee and the House to make the section as practicable as possible. If they had taken up that attitude and had produced proposals which would have assisted us to draw the section in the best way then they would have done very good work, and I went out of my way to tell them that we should very much like to have that help, but unfortunately that was not done. A good deal has been made of the evidence of the editorial staff of “Die Burger.” During the discussion hon. members have repeated what was said continuously at the second reading, namely, that the intention of the section is to hit the press of the South African party, and that it is only meant for them. If hon. members want proof that that is not so, then the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) himself gave us the proof thereof by referring to the evidence which showed that the Nationalist party newspapers were also opposed to a limitation being made. What value then has the argument that we are only engaged in hitting the press of the South African party? A few other points were mentioned. Hon. members have expressed the fear that people will be afraid of putting something into the paper if they have to sign it because they are afraid of vengeance. My answer to that is twofold. In the first place this that the workmen to-day, especially in the urban areas, are so organized that they need not be afraid of expressing their political opinion. Take Johannesburg, e.g., what do we find there? That the workmen usually take a political line publicly which is directly opposed to the policy followed by the employer. The workman is protected in his political opinions by his organization. That freedom the workmen have to-day and therefore they no longer need to write as in the past under a nom-de-plume. Another matter is that if anyone really has facts to communicate in connection with an election and in connection with a certain candidate standing at the election, and if the publication of the facts can exercise influence on the election, then such a person, if he is afraid of making himself known, can always find somebody else to communicate the fact in the public press. Every party is only too happy to get something that is actually true and of use for publication by means of the press, and if it is afraid to do it itself it will get people to do so. If it cannot get anybody for the purpose the facts are not worth the trouble of being communicated. Then the difficulty of getting correspondence has been mentioned as an objection. If I was fortunate enough to get one thing from the press men who gave evidence then is that it is now the custom in the Country districts, especially in the Cape Province and partly also in other provinces, to always appoint a secretary at political meetings who is required to send a report to the press, and the secretary signs his name to it, and I have never yet heard that any secretary has got into trouble through it or lost his appointment. If no objections exist in this respect why then should a correspondent be protected when he makes a bona fide report of such a meeting? I think the difficulty is merely exaggerated. I attach no importance to it. Then the matter of headlines has been discussed by certain members. I regard headlines over articles as belonging to the article itself, and I say that as a rule the headlines do not need to be signed because they belong to the report, are practically a part of it; but they are something which is added not by the reporter himself, but by the editor of a paper, and therefore this section was so amended in select committee that an opportunity is given to the editor, if those headlines do not represent in his opinion what is stated in the report itself, to sign it together with the reporter; and if he feels that he is doing an injustice to the reporter by the headlines, then he shall sign his name together with that of the reporter under the report. But I think that the responsibility for the headlines will have a good influence on those who draft them, because often the chief misrepresentation of a report does not lie in the report itself but in the headline. These are, I think, all the points that I have to answer.

It would have been an advantage if the views given in such detail by the Minister had been given in the report of the select committee. He has opened up such a wide field, considerations that were never heard before, that it is necessary we should carefully consider them. Had they been so disclosed we should have had a much better opportunity of judging how far they supported the case of the Minister. Although he has spoken at such length, I still remain very much unconvinced. I think he has still failed, notwithstanding all these new view points, to make a case for the inclusion of this clause. I want to ask the Minister to consider two amendments which I am going to move, and I hope he will agree that they are worth including. I want hon. members to follow me, and to look at the effect of the first sub-section of section 44. The word “advertisement” is to be inserted in respect of all electoral matter for which any reward or compensation is paid. This covers any report of a speech by a candidate if it is paid for. We are not dealing with the insertion, although at first I thought it was the insertion to which this applies. The words “for which” refer to the electoral matter, and not to the insertion. Let us take the “Guardian” for the sake of argument, as it has been mentioned to-night. Suppose they send a reporter to report the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) at Brakpan. If the reporter is paid for that work, it would have to be headed “advertisement,” and I ask the committee whether it is right that a candidate in the country, who does not himself pay for his speech, but which the newspaper pays for to a casual or regular correspondent, should be headed “advertisement.” I believe I am right in this interpretation of the clause. This is an unjust burden, not so much from the point of view of the newspaper proprietor as of a candidate, who would be thought to be paying for the reporting of his own speeches. In order that that point may be considered, I propose to move an amendment to confine that payment to a payment by the candidate, viz.—

In other words, where the candidate himself is not responsible for the payment in respect of a speech, it will not be necessary to head the report with the word “advertisement.” The Minister has accepted this in principle in Clause 36. When that clause came before the select Committee, the same difficulty was pointed out. [Time expired.]

The Minister has asked us to confine ourselves to the actual effect of this clause. Well, I would like to give the House an example as to what is going to happen to our press—what our newspapers are going to look like when this law comes into force. We might expect something like the following—

Fatuous frivolity.

I hope the Minister will not think I am trying to be frivolous.

“How we stormed the forts at Fordsburg.”

I do not understand the relevancy of that remark, but possibly if the hon. member for Brakpan is allowed the same liberty as in the past, we shall have to storm the fort at Fordsburg.

What do you insinuate by that? What do you mean?

I am referring to your activities during the Rand revolt.

What activities?

In commanding commandoes, and teaching them to bomb police.

Will you make that statement outside the House?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw. I shall take the correct opportunity of stating what I wish about the hon. member outside. All I need do is to quote the Blue Book on the subject, the evidence of the commission.

Ananias wrote that.

Let me read what Capt.

Loftus said.

That has nothing to do with this debate.

What is the good of a law like this which can be ridden through with a wagon and a span of oxen? The Minister practically admitted it himself just now. The moment this comes into force, I could get any editor to write a leading article and get the office boy to transcribe it and he could then sign below—

A House of the dignity of ours should not pass fatuous laws. The newspapers could make a laughing stock of this House. Why should we pass such foolish legislation—asked for by no one and to be observed by no one? It worries me to see Parliament passing stupid legislation of this kind. I am not worrying about the practical effect of the law because that will be nil. A similar law to this was passed in France under a very despotic Government, and this is an extract on the subject from “The Law of the Press” by Fisher and Strachan—

We have it on evidence that journalism in this country has reached a very high standard. Journalists take a pride in their profession, and the type of pamphleteer who seeks notoriety has never been known here. Does the standard of South African journalism require the humiliation of a clause of this sort? It is certainly a very serious restriction on the public—quite uncalled for and quite unnecessary—[Time expired.]

The hon. member’s speech is rather a reflection on South African journalism than otherwise. If the hon. member wishes to give the impression that the proprietors of South African newspapers would stoop to such a thing as he has suggested then the time has come to put a stop to that sort of thing.

They would be forced to do it.

I do not see what humiliation it is for a person who writes an article to sign his name to it. I am afraid we have got very much below the standard in this country of papers like the “Manchester Guardian,” particularly during elections and times of crisis. Referring to the statements made not only in the “Cape Times” but in the Rand papers with regard to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) I am able to state unhesitatingly that the hon. member never formed any commando.

Is the hon. member entitled to refer to this matter since the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) was not allowed to do so? He has referred to the alleged formation of commandoes by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston).

I ruled it out of order.

Is the hon. member entitled to refer to it? Because, if so, I shall ask to be allowed to refer to it?

I was referring to statements in the press and in this House. The then Prime Minister said that the hon. member did not form a commando, but he went to inherit something already formed when he went to Brakpan.

The allegation that was made was withdrawn, so that the hon. member need not pursue that subject.

The allegation was not true and the statements were known not to be true. I want to refer to a question brought up by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). If I am not very much mistaken the amendment he proposes would open the way to very grave abuse. If others apart from a candidate may insert articles which may be paid for, any number of articles may be inserted, and they may be paid for by anybody.

I only refer to party speeches.

It would be very difficult to find out who was paying for these insertions. They may be inserted by party agents and paid for by them on behalf of a party. The Minister will be wise to reject the hon. member’s amendment.

I wish to refer to a statement of the Minister of the Interior when introducing this Bill at the second reading. He said—

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in reading from Hansard a speech made by the Minister during the session according to rule 62?

On what subject is it?

It is on this Bill.

Yes, the hon. member is entitled to proceed.

The Minister on the second reading said—

The Minister of the Interior was the editor of Die Burger” when the following attack was made on the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). “Die Burger” said—

That was published in “Die Burger” at a time when the Minister of the Interior was the editor. If this Bill had then been in force, these words would have had the dignity of the Minister of the Interior’s signature below them.

Why not?

Does the hon. member wish to suggest it is true?

Any man who writes that sort of stuff should acknowledge it.

The Minister of the Interior suggests that anybody who is guilty of a vile attack should be prepared to bear the brunt of it. Is the Minister of the Interior, then the editor, prepared to bear the brunt of this? Is this a fair attack upon the right hon. member for Standerton?

It didn’t appear in a leading article.

I see you are ashamed of it.

Give us the date.

I can give you the date and supply you with the original if you want it. Does the Minister doubt the accuracy of what I say?

Does the Minister of the Interior deny it?

The Minister is now in his place. I ask him was this published in “Die Burger” while he was the editor? Will the minister deny that it appeared in a leading article in “Die Burger” whilst he was editor? …. I think the Minister’s silence is incriminating. We can only assume that if not actually guilty of what he calls “a vile or unworthy attack” he certainly showed a superfluity of naughtiness in allowing such statements to appear in the paper while he was editor. The hon. member for Umbilo, another editor of another paper, “The Guardian”, made bold to say that he had never attacked anybody in that paper excepting above his own signature. I refer him to two issues of his paper, 6th June, 1924, and 24th April, 1925, in which there are vile attacks made on me, and the hon. member’s signature does not appear to either of these attacks.

May I ask the hon. member what bearing this has on this clause?

Precisely the same bearing as the hon. member’s original statement had.

Unless the hon. member can show me some bearing I must ask him now to stop pursuing that point.

I am prepared to do so, but I wish to clear the atmosphere in regard to this statement. The hon. member for Roodepoort, the Rev. Mr. Mullineux, was allowed to give an impression to the committee that the statement made with regard to the complicity of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston)—

I stopped the hon. member for Roodepoort.

You allowed the hon. member to continue his statement that it was not true.

Immediately the point was raised, that I stopped him.

Do you rule I am not permitted to refer to that?

I stopped the hon. member for Roodepoort, and I think the hon. member for Illovo was the member who asked me, on a point of order, to take cognizance of what was said. This discussion must now cease.

The evidence given by Mr. Rompel is of considerable interest in connection with this matter, because he points out it will be difficult for him to control correspondents who at present contribute to the newspaper, and the enforcement of this rule will occasion injustice in regard to the conducting of his newspaper in future. He deals very frankly with the whole subject, and I should like to quote briefly from his evidence. He says—

He also says a number of his correspondents are predikants and people who do not like to sign reports. He says—

[Time expired.]

I move—

On a point of order, I have not yet brought up my amendment. I moved it.

You are too late.

The hon. member (Mr. Coulter) did not move it. He made some suggestion about moving it, but he did not move it nor did he bring it up.

I distinctly read out this amendment.

Why didn’t you bring it up?

You stopped my speech under the Rule?

If there is no objection, I will allow the hon. member (Mr. Coulter) to bring up the amendment.

Amendment brought up.

Is there any objection to my accepting this amendment?

No objection raised.

On a point of order, this amendment, which I moved, was one on which a point was raised by the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) and I would like to have an opportunity of dealing with the statements he has made.

No, I am very sorry, but I have already accepted a motion for the closure.

Does it not require a further motion for the closure if an amendment is brought up after the motion for the closure has been moved?

It is only as a matter of courtesy and indulgence that I have allowed the hon. member to bring up his amendment. With that I think the hon. member should be satisfied. Before I put this amendment the other motion must be put, viz., that the question be now put.

On a point of order, is it possible to accept an amendment and then not put it?

I shall put the amendment, but before I do so I must put the motion for the closure, which has been moved. I shall thereafter put all the amendments moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), as well as that moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter).