The Transvaal from Within Part 30

LOCUST EXTERMINATION.

July 21.-Mr. Roos said locusts were a plague, as in the days of King Pharaoh, sent by G.o.d, and the country would a.s.suredly be loaded with shame and obloquy if it tried to raise its hand against the mighty hand of the Almighty.

Messrs. DECLERQ and STEENKAMP spoke in the same strain, quoting largely from the Scriptures.

The CHAIRMAN related a true story of a man whose farm was always spared by the locusts, until one day he caused some to be killed. His farm was then devastated.

Mr. STOOP conjured the members not to const.i.tute themselves terrestrial G.o.ds and oppose the Almighty.

Mr. LUCAS MEYER raised a storm by ridiculing the arguments of the former speakers, and comparing the locusts to beasts of prey which they destroyed.

Mr. LABUSCHAGNE was violent. He said the locusts were quite different from beasts of prey. They were a special plague sent by G.o.d for their sinfulness.

July 26.-Mr. DE BEER attacking the railways said they were already beginning to eat the bitter fruits of them. He was thinking of trekking to Damaraland, and his children would trek still further into the wilderness out of the reach of the iron horse.

August 16.-Mr. DE BEER said he saw where all the opposition to duties came from. It was English blood boiling to protect English manufacture.

1893.

June 21.-A memorial was read from certain burghers of Waterberg about children beating their parents, and praying that such children should not be allowed to become officials of the State or sit in Volksraad!

Mr. DE BEER-the Member for Waterberg-who in the days of his hot youth is said to have given his father a sound thras.h.i.+ng, and is the one aimed at by the memorialists, denied all knowledge of the memorial.

CHARLESTOWN EXTENSION.

August 24.-Mr. WOLMARANS opposed the line, as it would compete with the Delagoa Bay Railway, for which the State was responsible.

Mr. LE CLERQ maintained that the Cape Free State line was against the interests of the burghers, as a tremendous number of cattle were brought into the State from outside countries.

Mr. MALAN said he would never vote for this line.

Mr. ROOS referred to the sacred voice of the people, which he said was against railways.

The extension was eventually approved of.

1894.

FIRST RAAD.

May 14.-A debate took place upon the clause that members should appear in the House clad in broadcloth and having white neckties.

Mr. JAN DE BEER complained of the lack of uniformity in neckties. Some wore a Tom Thumb variety, and others wore scarves. This was a state of things to be deplored, and he considered that the Raad should put its foot down and define the size and shape of neckties.

JAM CONCESSION.

August 28.-The PRESIDENT said he was against concessions generally speaking, but there were cases where exceptions should be made. There was for instance the Jam Concession. The manufacture of jam ought to be protected.

REDUCTION OF POSTAGE FROM TWOPENCE TO ONE PENNY THROUGHOUT THE REPUBLIC.

August 22.-Mr. WOLMARANS opposed the reduction, saying the Postal Department would probably show a deficit at the end of the year. And besides who would benefit? Certainly not the farmers.

Mr. LOMBAARD also was against the reduction.

Mr. DE LA REY said speculators could afford to pay the present rates of postage, and as the reduction would only benefit the townspeople, let matters remain unaltered. If he resided in a town and speculated he would be able to pay twopence.

Mr. SCHUTTE said the Postal Department was run at a loss at present, and if they further reduced the tariff things would go very badly with them.

Reduction rejected, 13 to 9.

INCREASE OF REPRESENTATION.

September 6.-The PRESIDENT throughout the debate maintained that there was no advantage to be gained by increased representation, and that business could be more quickly transacted with a small number of members. He disagreed with those members who wished to give big towns representatives as the Raad would be swamped with town members.

After the rejection of various proposals the PRESIDENT rose and pointed out it would mean ruination to the country if the Raad resolved to increase the number of the members, and amidst some confusion he left, declining to occupy the Presidential chair, muttering that the Raad was large enough already and if it were increased it would be a shame.

EDUCATION QUESTION.

September 7.-The Committee reported that a number of memorials had been received, praying that more hours weekly should be devoted to the English language. Counter memorials had also been received. The Committee advised the Raad not to grant the request of more hours for English.

Mr. LOMBAARD thought the Raad was bound to refuse the request, and it would be useless to discuss the matter.

Mr. DE BEER could see no harm in granting the request, in fact it was their duty to do so.

Mr. SPIES considered there was no necessity to teach English in the State. Trade did not require it, and they could get on very well without English. Let the English remain in their own country.

The PRESIDENT was opposed to extending the hours. He did not object to English being taught, but then it must not interfere with the language of the country to the prejudice of the latter language. He had schools upon his farm, and parents objected to their children being taught English in those schools. After a very little while they could write English as well as or better than their own language, and neglected Dutch for English. The Dutch language could not be maintained against English in compet.i.tion.

Mr. WOLMARANS also spoke against the English language saying that if they went through the list of those who had signed the memorial for the annexation of the Transvaal by the English, they would find without exception that those who signed were English-speaking. He was against children being taught English so early, as when they were taught young their minds became poisoned with English views.

Mr. OTTO agreed with the spirit of the Committee's report. This was a Dutch country, with Dutch laws, and why should they be asked to exchange the Dutch language for the English? What had the English done for the country that this should be asked?

The CHAIRMAN thought many members made too much of the English language already. One language was sufficient, and if a man was properly educated in his own tongue that should suffice.

Mr. LE CLERQ and Mr. PRINSLOO both cautioned the Raad against foreign languages in their schools.

Mr. LOVEDAY pointed out the absurdity of saying that the National Independence depended upon one language only being used, and pointed to the American and Swiss Republics as examples.

Mr. LOMBAARD in the course of a violent speech said those people who wanted English taught in the State-aided schools were aiming at the independence of the State. They wanted to bring dissension in the midst of the burghers by teaching new and wrong ideas, and they became indignant because the burghers would not allow it. He was ashamed that members should argue in favour of injuring their independence: English should not be taught in the State-aided schools.

The law remained unaltered by 12 to 10.

1895.

July 26.-The matter of purchasing diamond drills cropping up, the PRESIDENT said it was true that the two industries mining and agriculture went hand in hand, but it must be remembered that every fresh goldfield opened meant a fresh stream of people and extra expenses. He hoped the Raad would excuse him referring to it, but the Raad took away the revenue and still asked for money. There was the reduction of postage; now it was asked to spend money on boring machines, when each new field meant so much extra expense. Machines for water boring were cheap and not fitted with diamonds like those for mining, which required to be handled by experts. It must be remembered that money voted for agricultural purposes was spent here, while for the gold industry it was sent away. The Raad must be careful how the money was voted.

FIRST RAAD.

FIRING AT THE CLOUDS TO BRING DOWN RAIN CONSIDERED IMPIOUS.