The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1911. FRICTION IN SOUTH AFRICA.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 11110, 6 May 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1911. FRICTION IN SOUTH AFRICA.

The late Mr. W. E. Gladstone was an acknowledged authority on Constitutional and Parliamentary usage, and therefore when he laid it down that "the Executive has r:o Constitutional authority to make a contract binding on Parliament," his dictum was accepted and has held good, at least in England, ever since, ilcccnt disclosures in the Union Parliament in South Africa tend to show that it has not appealed with like force to some members of tho late Transvaal Ministry, who happen also to be leading members of the Union Ministry. Our readers will remember that when the Union was finally arranged, it was stated that new Government buildings would have to be erected at Pretoria to accommodate the headquarters staff of the Union Civil Service. The months passed. The Transvaal Parliament assembled for its last session, transacted much business, and dissolved for all time, without the Ministry giving any information to the House in , regard to the proposed new buildings. Now, this silence did not cause surprise because it seems to have boon generally and naturally assumed that the whole proposition was one for the new and enlarged Parliament rather than for a smaller and less representative body which was on the point of expiring. Before tin- new Parliament opened for its first business session, rumour was heard to say that the late Transvaal Government had, without consulting Parliament or the other provinces, committed United South Africa to building contracts to the extent of over one million pounds. Questions were, of course, put in the House, but the answers were always evasive, and it took four separate discussions before Government consented to lay the papers on the table. In one other respect these ■ discussions were fruitful. They drew from General Smuts what purported to be a full statement of all the facts. He stated, and at a later date ho was confirmed by Mr. Hull, the Treasurer and chief culprit, that the liability incurred was small, that the Transvaal Government, before incurring it, had consulted the Premiers of tho other provinces (then colonies), and the Transvaal Leader of the Opposition, and he left the House to draw the obvious inference that in each case approval had been obtained. He went on to explain further that the only reason why the Transvaal Parliament had not been consulted was because the contracts and specifications were not ready before its last session closed. There can be little doubt but that when ho made this speech General Smuts thought ho had finally laid the ghost of this troublesome question. Unluckily for him,- Mr. Jagger, a Cape Town •member and one of the ablest commercial men in the House, had in his possession certain information so definite, and so much at variance with General Smuts's version of the facts, that he was forced to be incredulous about the latter. Accordingly, he continued to press for, and at last obtained, the official papers. No member ever obtained a more complete justification of his course of action than these papers gave Mr. Jagger.

Briefly the true facts are these: The liability incurred by Mr. Hull was not "small." It was £900,000. It is true that the other Premiers were consulted, but the figure named to them was £150,000, and none of them approved. Natal neither approved nor disapproved. Cape Colony and the Orange River Colony both strongly advised delay, and a reference either to a,joint committee or to the Union Parliament. And all that the" Opposition leader knew was that certain land for a site had been bought. Further, specifica-' tions for over £620,000 were issued before the Transvaal Parliament had even met for its last session, contracts for that amount.were signed whilst it was sitting, and specifications for a further £250,000 were issued during the same period, though the contracts were not actually signed until a few days affor it had dissolved. A motion by Mr. Jagger for a Select Committee to go into the whole matter then gave rise to the most stirring debate that has yet taken place in the Union Parliament. Good as Mr. Jagger's case was from the outset, he did not weaken it by the details of the buildings that he gave—£2o,ooo for sculptures, a huge dining-room for the

staff, another for the Cabinet with mosaic tiling, a motor-garage 115 ft. by 60ft., a bicycle room of the same size. These are some of the items of a bill which is to end in Government buildings costing the taxpayers £1000 per clerk, and without Parliament having sanctioned, or even had the opportunity of sanctioning, one penny of it. The defence made by General Smuts was not remarkable for its weakness—defence of such a case could only be remarkable if it was not weak. But as the absence of any shred of excuse for such a gross breach of Constitutional practice, and_ as the Government's want of ordinary truthfulness, was realised by Government members, a chilling silence stole over the crowded House and it was evident that for the first time in his life General Smuts had completely lost its "ear." Realising this, he threw aside all further excuses, declared that the motion was an attack on the late Transvaal Ministry, and wound up by declaring that the Union Cabinet would construe the division as a vote of want of confidence. These tactics saved tho Government, for although Me. Merruian strongly supported the motion, it was defeated. But the Government has utterly lost the confidence of many who have_ hitherto supported it, and ife position is no longer strong. We have set out these facts th'us fully becausp they so clearly illustrate fiie tendency of modern colonial Executives to usurp all power. The continuous Ministry in New Zealand has net yet ventured on such a wholesale. defiance of the rights of Parliament and of the electors, as we have here recorded. But none the less surely it is reaching the same goal by other paths: Over-riding Acts of Parliament by Orders-in-Council, ignoring reductions of votes by the people's srepresentatives in Supply, omitting to furnish returns' ordered by the Houso, deviating from railway routes authorised by Parliament, refusal to spend votes for the purposes ordered by Parliament. What are these but slightly different methods of attaining the same object, tho absolutism of the Cabinet, and the impotence of tho taxpayer ? New Zealanders account themselves high-spirited, yet they allow their servants to be their masters.