Between 1890 and 1923, the East London Town Council tended to regard its townships for the Black community, what it called "locations", as somewhat of an evil necessity. On the one hand, they provided the much needed labour for the port and town. On the other, little money was ever spent on them and wherever possible the cost of administration had to be balanced by the money collected by way of hut-tax and various other rentals.

Nevertheless, despite the racial prejudice which existed among several of the councillors, there was a marked degree of paternalism in that sphere and great pride was initially taken in the fact that the locations were kept hygienic and well organised. The Council was seen to have a "duty" towards its "Native dependents", as the Medical Officer of Health commented in 1896, but it was also a matter of simple expediency because a major epidemic within the locations could have had a serious effect on the White community as well.

Superintendent Percy Potter was particularly scrupulous about the maintenance of sanitary measures and saw to it that five latrines, with a total of 34 seats, were constructed in the East Bank Location and a further two on the West Bank. All were scrubbed twice a week by contractor, he reported, the streets were kept clean and all rubbish was deposited in bins placed "in convenient situations". Yet, despite his fastidiousness in maintaining sanitary standards, Potter proved decidedly unpopular among the location residents because of his high-handed and vindictive approach. He ruled "with a rod of iron", Reverend Walter Rubusana wrote to a churchman friend, and dealt with the Black community "in an arbitrary manner".

Open conflict erupted between the two men during the latter half of 1896 when Potter ordered the destruction of a number of kitchens in the East Bank Location. Although they had been built with Council permission, the Inspector believed that some infringed municipal regulations because they were used as places in which to sleep and were therefore unhygienic. Instead of enforcing the regulation on the offending parties, Potter insisted that all the kitchens be pulled down.

Rubusana, on the other hand, claimed that the Inspector had deliberately kept the Council misinformed as to the number and quality of the structures. According to Rubusana, there were 17 kitchens in the East Bank Location, 15 of which were detached from the main huts, one was built on a separate building lot and one was constructed in such a way as to be "merely touching" the main building. Potter, on the other hand, informed the Council that there were only 12 kitchens in existence.

In a lengthy letter to the Mayor, Rubusana pointed out that the kitchens were a "great convenience" to the residents "from a domestic, moral & sanitary point of view" but Potter's insistence that the people demolish what they had put up "with his consent & with some cost to themselves" was viewed, he said, with alarm and apprehension "by those who know the natives well". The action was further aggravated by the fact that Potter had given no just cause "for his extraordinary turn of mind".

The Superintendent had gone even further, Rubusana stated, by singling out "as fit objects for his persecution" those people who had failed to pull down their kitchens and for four consecutive months he had refused to accept their monthly rent when it was tendered, thereby making the residents liable for eviction. He had also withdrawn other privileges, such as granting them permits to chop wood on the commonage and the with-holding of lime-wash for their houses.

Some of the people, Rubusana concluded, were "old respectable residents" who had not infringed any municipal bye-laws. The Africans were a very conservative people, he wrote, "and should not be left to the whims & caprice of an officer who, whatever his other qualifications are, is utterly at sea in governing Natives on lines of justice & equity."

The Council hastily established a Location Committee to deal with the issue and it concluded that in future licences should be issued for the construction of kitchens but that, because Potter had already ordered some of the existing kitchens to be destroyed, it would be "unfair" to allow the others to remain. As a matter of justice, therefore, all kitchens were pulled down.

Rubusana drafted a separate letter to Councillors George Blaine and John Stacey to thank them for their continual support in Council and in it he again attacked Potter. The Location Inspector, he wrote, "is no gentleman & is harsh & drastic in all his dealings with the Natives. He is a vindictive man & is not above doing mean things. He is not truthful, & for that reason, he should be carefully watched by the Council."

Potter was soon hauled before the Council's Location Committee to explain his actions but retaliated by accusing Rubusana of being a liar. Rubusana thereupon attempted to sue him for defamation of character but lost the case on a technicality, the Town Clerk stating that Potter's language was "not quite abusive". It nevertheless had a deterring effect on the Superintendent's "summary dealing with the Natives".

In 1901 Potter was replaced by Charles Lloyd, who remained in the post of Location Superintendent for three decades. He was a man with an extraordinary attitude to the African community, whom he saw purely as a commodity for the labour market and who were overpaid and lazy. He testified before the Native Affairs Commission in 1903 (Lagden Commission) that he believed the locations should exist purely to supply labour and that wages to the Black people should be held at such levels as to force them to work.

The "extravagant wage" at East London, Lloyd said, enabled a man to work only a few days a week and "to lie idle at home" for the rest of the time although the amount of leave allowed to a location resident was purely at the discretion of the Superintendent. He personally would never allow a man to absent himself from work for more than one or two days, he said, without serving an eviction order on him. His "general view" was that it was "not reasonable" for an African to rest every Saturday but "occasionally" he would not object to it and the only exception he was prepared to allow was for a man who met the Government's norm for exemption, in which case he would refer the case to the Mayor.

Conclusion

The Location Superintendents at East London were men with enormous power over the communities which they supervised. Indeed, they were allowed to police the location residents free from almost any restriction laid

See also: East Bank Location Rev. Walter Rubusana

down by the Town Council itself. As such, therefore, they almost unilaterally engineered location policy which was then merely rubber- stamped by the councillors.

Dr Keith Tankard