The importance of taxation in the study of history has long been recognized and in such topics as the constitutional crisis in Seventeenth Century England, the American struggle for independence, and the outbreak of revolution in France in 1789, the subject has received considerable treatment and prominence. However, taxation remains a rather neglected aspect of South African history 1 despite the importance attached to the taxation of Africans by John Hobson in his Imperialism: a study;2 the warnings, criticisms and allegations of its abuse by the London-based Aborigines' Protection Society; as well as the criticisms voiced in South Africa by the South African Native Congress (Cape) and the Transvaal Native Congress. The views of these Africans were aired pointedly in Izwi Labantu of East London. The writings of Hobson, a contemporary of Milner, have been given prominence in recent years by Shula Marks and Stanley Trapido. Their joint article, 'Lord Milner and the South African State' emphasizes Hobson's view that British policy before and after the South African War "could be reduced to the one all-important object of securing 'a full, cheap, regular, submissive supply of Kaffir ... labour'".3 Several leading scholars such as Donald Denoon, Martin Legassick, Colin Bundy and the various authors of the Roots of Rural Poverty offer similar interpretations of British imperial policy during the early years of the twentieth century with its concern for cheap African labour.

Any evaluation of taxation must be regarded as being far more than a repetition of cold statistics and needs to be viewed within the full context of prevailing ideology and politics. Amongst the more obvious issues that need to be examined are the rate or level of taxation, the efficiency of its collection, wages earned, the benefits received by the taxpayers, the place of taxation in the context of general policies, and, a comparison with taxation practices in previous and subsequent periods, as well as a comparison with the taxation of other population groups within the same society. Bearing these points in mind, this paper focuses on the taxation policies of the Transvaal towards Africans with particular emphasis on the years 1902-1907, the reconstruction era.

A major feature of British propaganda against the South African Republic in 1899 was the denunciation of Boer "native policy" and the intimation that were the Transvaal to come under British control, conditions would be greatly changed to the advantage of Africans. Prior to the outbreak of war, Transvaal Africans were taxed according to the Volksraad Resolution 24 of 1895 which made them liable to pay annually:

10s             for every straw hut. Each African male over 21 years, married or unmarried was assessed as possessing one hut. Each additional wife was assessed as an extra hut.
40s            for each male married or unmarried — poll tax. Exceptions were to be: those who by reason of age or chronic disease were unable to pay, those who resided among white people as servants (farm labourers were included if their master was prepared to issue them with a certificate stating that they were labourers) and, those in the employ of Government who drew no salary.
10s             dog tax.
2s 6d          road tax.

This totalled a minimum of £3 2s 6d. However, certain Africans were liable to other contingent contributions such as 2s per month for a pass entitling them to reside in labour districts and 1s per month for a pass for those employed under the Gold Law. In addition, under the 1895 Contagious Disease Law, there was a further extraordinary poll tax of 10s payable.

A major criticism of the Kruger government by Sir Godfrey Lagden,6 the Transvaal Commissioner of Native Affairs under Milner, was the inefficient and haphazard implementation of the tax laws. A reason explaining this was that the responsibility for the collection rested with veldkonets.7 The majority were local farmers who relied considerably on African labour. Hence, although the Volksraad might occasionally, as in 1898, bemoan the limited revenue raised from African taxation, there was never a concerted effort by the Volksraad to increase revenue from this source.

As prominent landowners, the veldkonets were vitally concerned with adequate labour supplies to White landowners and utilized taxation as a weapon to stimulate labour. Consequently, many Africans obtained exemption certificates by agreeing to provide a determined amount of labour to a White landowner. In most cases, it would appear that two months' work was adequate. This arrangement appears to have been a major means of legally avoiding tax payment. Also, apart from the unwillingness of the veldkonets, the state was reluctant to assert its authority and enforce payment from African societies capable of challenging the collectors. This would clearly explain the reluctance of the Volksraad to order a systematic collection. It was not until as late as 1898 that the Transvaal was able to subdue Mphephu's Venda in the Zoutpansberg district.8 It would appear that the largest amount of revenue raised from African taxation by the Kruger government was in 1898, the equivalent of £100 000.9 Often, it was considerably less. The obvious conclusion is that whilst taxation was nominally very heavy for Africans, in practice it was frequently avoided. Of approximately 180000 eligible male adults, it would appear that no more than 35 000 paid taxes in 1898.

It is pertinent to note that despite British criticisms of Republican "native Policies", the major feature of their rule of the Transvaal after 1902 was that no major changes in policies towards Africans were effected, and that pre-war policies were maintained but with greater determination and efficiency.10 During this time, "native policy" was the responsibility of the High Commissioner, Lord Milner, succeeded in 1905 by Lord Selborne, and the Commissioner of Native Affairs, Sir Godfrey Lagden. Their first batch of legislation included the tidying-up and extension of the Master and Servants Act, the streamlining of the Pass Laws, more effective measures to combat alcoholism and desertion by Africans employed on the gold mines, as well as the taxation of Africans. Very little of this legislative package was liable to satisfy and inspire those Africans who had anticipated a more liberal and progressive approach towards Africans after a British victory over the republics.

From the outset of the British occupation of the Transvaal, British critics of imperialism were suspicious that the Randlords might persuade Milner and Lagden to introduce laws that would give the mines undue control over the recruitment and maintenance of African labour. The Aborigines' Protection Society was very critical of Milner's taxation resolutions. It should be noted that the Colonial Office appears to have had no plans or suggestions as regards improving the status of Africans in the Transvaal.12 All legislation pertaining to Africans was initiated locally by Milner and Lagden, who later informed the Colonial Office of their decisions. These appear to have heel accepted with a minimum of scrutiny.

Under British rule, every adult male African domiciled in the Transvaal was liable to pay a consolidated tax amounting to 40s in lieu of taxes payable under the repeated 1895 laws. Whilst it was the intention to tax as many as possible, two groups were particularly targeted: those who lived in locations under communal tenure and those who had purchased land, either individually or as a group. The first group numbered, in 1904, 123 309 and were considered, especially by the British Administration, to have a firm obligation to provide labour as long as fair wages were paid.13 Indeed, the terms of reference for South African Native Commission included analysis of the tenure of land by Natives and the obligations to the State which it entails ‘’

As these Africans occupied land, proclaimed inalienable by the Government, that was free of rent, Milner and Lagden believed that they were obliged to provide labour in return for the privileges they enjoyed. About 85 000 Africans were domiciled on land they owned individually or collectively.15 The major objection against them was that they permitted other Africans to squat illegally on their land. The squatters were able to make a living out of agriculture and avoid entering the labour market. As the Transvaal gradually recovered from war and White agriculture began to meet the colony's needs, such Africans were bitterly opposed by most Whites but especially by landowners.

Any African with more than one wife was liable to pay a further tax of 40s per wife. Also, the Dog Tax of 10s remained, but Milner intimated that this would be repealed, as soon as it was practical, to introduce an amending ordinance so that Africans, like Whites, would be able to keep one dog free of tax. The pass fees which had previously been paid by Africans became the responsibility of employers, whilst the normal pass for travelling was issued free of charge.16 In short, male adult Africans were to pay, at a minimum, 40s but most would have to pay more because of their dogs. Older males, those most likely to be polygamists, would pay considerably more than before. Whites believed that polygamy enabled Africans to avoid paid labour as they could pay their taxes through the efforts of their wives. Hence, they should pay for the luxury! The extra tax on polygamists was designed to force such men to produce an agricultural surplus or to undergo periods of labour.

In order to ascertain the full implications of Milner's taxation laws, some comment is necessary as to who precisely was liable to pay the taxes, and, who was legally exempt. A major problem for those involved in African administration was that of correctly ascertaining the age of potential taxpayers because of the lack of uniformity on the liable age. In 1895 it was stated that Africans above 21 years were liable, but, in the absence of direct and reliable proof, the collector should estimate the age of unmarried Africans. There was a presumption that any married African, even if under 21 years, was liable. However to complicate matters, the Republican Government did not always adhere to the age limit as laid down in 1895. The extraordinary poll-tax was to be payable by those over 18 years whilst the Pass Laws (1899) were applicable to those over 14 years and the Town Regulations (1899) were applicable to those over 12 years. In short, the Republican Government applied four different age limits.

Milner and Lagden's solution to this problem is most revealing of their intention to tax as many African males as possible. They deliberately chose to omit any specific reference to age and inserted "adult male" without providing a defined age. Tax collectors, usually officials of the Native Affairs Department, were instructed to work on the assumption that the liable age was 18 years.

The Attorney General, Sir Richard Solomon, was in agreement with this, even though he was aware that the term "adult male" implied 21 years or more. Indeed, Solomon encouraged this by stating that taxes should te collected from all males over 18 years until the Government was challenged in court on the issue.19 One must conclude that the intention was to boost revenue from African taxation as much as possible, whilst avoiding the critical eye of the Aborigines' Protection Society and its supporters.

In late 1901, Milner sent Chamberlain an important and revealing memo randum in which he commented on and explained the major laws enacted in 1901 that were relevant to Africans. The overriding concern appears to hare been to stimulate and regulate the flow of African labour to the mines. He made vague promises about a "liberal" interpretation of the forthcoming taxation laws, especially with regard to those unable to pay, due to age or illness, as well as those, who by their advancement, did not need to pay However, in countering this, Milner stated that Africans "needed to be taxed in proportion to the services rendered and the benefits bestowed upon Africans" by the British Government.20 These included the reservation P inalienable land, abandonment of the frequent and unchecked use of lashes for trivial offences, and the fair treatment received from Government officials.

Lagden was more precise. He believed that the standard of qualifications for exemption (which was to be granted by the Commissioner of Native Affairs) should be high and that this was desirable so that "they may have something to aim at and benefit by acquiring".21 As a result, few exemptions were granted. Forty-five were approved in 1901 whilst in 1905 the number of new exemptions dropped to fourteen. There is no direct evidence concern those exempted on grounds of "age" or "infirmity". This is surprising because with the dislocation and destruction caused by war, and the wide spread drought of the period, one would have thought that consideration numbers would have applied for exemption. However, it is a moot point whether many were aware of such rights.

Significantly, the exemption from tax payments enjoyed under republican rule by Africans who performed labour for White landowners and were issued with certificates which enabled them to gain such exemption, was removed. This became a constant grievance by White landowners after 1902. On the other hand, those Africans who travelled to labour districts to work on mines or in industry found their position theoretically improved as employers became responsible for the payment of pass fees. It is very likely that such payments were taken into account when wage levels were determined.

Taxation must be weighed against income. Pre-war wages on the gold mines had risen to 63s a month but during the war were reduced to 20s. After the war, wages were then "raised" to 30—35s a month. Most African seeking work because there was an unprecedented demand for labour all over South Africa as Donald Denoon has shown rejected such wages. It was easy to find better-paid and more congenial working conditions at the ports, in road and railway construction as well as in industry. Here rates of pay tended to range from 60-100s per month. The failure of the goldmines to attract adequate numbers of workers, led the Chamber of Mines in April 1903, to increase wages to between 45-60s a month as well as to offer bonuses to those who re-enlisted and to introduce productivity incentives.

Wages in agriculture were considerably lower but workers here generally received important fringe benefits such as the right to graze cattle, cultivate crops and gather wood for fuel. Actual wages of 20s a month was widely regarded as fair by White landowners but inadequate by Africans because they were no longer eligible for tax exemption as full time agricultural labourers. Hence, the need to earn money to meet tax obligations and purchase desired manufactures caused Africans to seek employment elsewhere.

During the reconstruction era, wages in agriculture and mining were lower than in the 1890s. Hence, most Africans would find it more difficult to meet their taxation obligations than before, especially as administrative efficiency was far greater than in the past.

The collection of African taxes was the responsibility of the Native Affairs Department, but where there was inadequate staff, the responsibility was assumed by magistrates and officials of the Constabulary. The first collection under British rule was in 1903 — 4, and thereafter annually. Collection was normally made towards the end of the agricultural season in April and May.

The meticulous records maintained for each and every district of the Transvaal illustrate the importance placed on tax collection. The practice developed whereby a running total was produced indicating how much tax had been collected for each year, and, how much of the outstanding tax in arrears, had been collected. In this way, it was possible to calculate "amounts outstanding". Shortfalls could always be explained. A widespread reason was the absence of men away at work, whilst the demands of the 1904 census, staff retrenchment, lack of transport, and the practice of making chiefs and headmen responsible for bringing their men to the collector, all led to short-term falls in the amount collected. In 1898, as noted above, approximately 35 000 of 180 000 eligible males paid taxes. In 1903-4, the number rose to 130 000, whilst in 1904-5, it increased to 170 000, a level maintained until Union in 1910.

In a memorandum submitted to the Colonial Office by the Aborigines' Protection Society, soon after the British occupation of the Transvaal, the issue of African taxation was raised. The Society recognized the right and the necessity of the British Administration to tax Africans as long as the level was "reasonable" — being interpreted as being sufficient to cover the administrative costs of caring for the African population.25 A comparison will African taxation rates in other British colonies in South Africa (1904) reveals that the Transvaal imposed a far higher rate than the other colonies.

Cape Hut Tax 10s Natal Hut Tax 14s
Orange River Colony poll Tax 20s Southern Rhodesia Hut Tax 10s
Basutoland Hut Tax 20s Bechunaland Hut Tax 10s26

Africans in the Transvaal were liable to at least twice as much tax as the second highest colony, Orange River Colony, (also under Milner's diner control), and Basutoland, (where Lagden had been the Resident Commissioner until 1901). Milner's immediate objective in the Transvaal was to get goldmines back to pre-war production levels so that the entire Transvaal economy would experience the benefits. A major problem that the mines to face in the pre-war years was the shortage of unskilled African labour Hence, by levying a tax twice as high as anywhere else in South Africa, and efficient collection, he and Lagden believed that increasing numbers Africans would be forced to obtain paid employment. It should be noted that Lagden was a particularly close friend of H. Eckstein of Rand Mines Limited, and was well aware of their needs.27 To Milner, the success of British rule in the Transvaal ultimately depended on the supply of African labour to the goldmines. Taxation was to be one of the means of stimulating the supply.

It is pertinent to point out that at this time, there was no direct tax on Whites anywhere in South Africa. This was to come in 1913 with the introduction of income tax. Revenue from Whites was mainly derived from customs dues and stamp duties. These also applied to Africans, but, as they were more self-reliant, and generally less commercialized, they were not as affected by such dues as Whites. Nevertheless, in what was probably an extremely conservative estimate of African contributions to customs dues, the South African Native Affairs Commission estimated that in 1904, Transvaal Africans contributed over £100 000 of the £465 000 collected from Africans over the whole of South Africa.

In his classic work Imperialism: a study, John Hobson made several comments on British rule in the Transvaal. He argued that the demands of the vast mining industry which was likely to grow to gigantic proportions, could not await the influence of natural forces to transform increasing numbers of peasants into industrial workers. He believed that the Randlords wanted an unnatural accession to the labour market, hence, their frantic efforts to scour the continents of Africa and Asia to bring in masses of Indians or Chinese, and their determination to "substitute for natural economic pressure various veiled modes of political or private compulsion". Indeed, to Hobson, Government regulations and taxes were being "prostituted" for purposes of commercial profit. He alleged that "laws were passed, taxes levied, the machinery of public administration utilized in order to secure a large, cheap, regular, efficient and submissive supply of labourers for companies or private persons ... for their personal gain".

Hobson saw nothing wrong with the imposition of taxes to assist in defraying Government expenses as long as care was taken in their assessment and collection. It was important, he noted, to realize the small size of the market and the restricted use of money in such societies. However, Hobson argued that taxes on Africans were frequently applied so as to dispossess Africans of their land, force them to work for wages and drive them into insurrection which would ultimately lead to their complete domination by White capitalist society. The chief aim of African taxation in the Transvaal was not merely to provide revenue, but to compel Africans to offer their labour to the gold mines. He believed the Randlords to be agreed "as to their right and their need to compel Africans to undergo the dignity of labour".30 He was convinced that with the great desire of Milner to get the mines back to full production as soon as possible, and to bring about further development and expansion, the State would acquiesce to Randlord demands and restrict land available to Africans, break up traditional society and apply excessive taxes designed to coerce Africans into paid employment. To appreciate fully the financial contribution of Africans to Transvaal revenue during the reconstruction period, it is essential to note the following statistics:

Revenue

Year	Taxes	Passes	Customs dues	Total £
1903-4	277139	207316	100 000*	584455
1904-5	407680	219918	100000	727598
1905-6	372632	234856	100000	707488
1906-7	310 636	236 506	100 000	647 142
* estimated by South African Native Affairs Commission, 1905.

It is revealing to compare the above with figures for the tax levied on gold mine profits.

Year	Total £
1903-4	343 014
1904-5	415 628
1905-6	455 573
1906-7	584 682

Expenditure

Year	Native Affairs Department £	African education £
1903-4	104 468	5 000
1904-5	88 832	7 000
1905-6	100 832	8 000
1906-7	105 497	10 00031

It should be noted that for these years, the Transvaal enjoyed surplus revenue over expenditure of approximately £2,4 million. Despite the financial position, there was no generosity towards Africans, nor, for that matter, their guardians, the Native Affairs Department. Even before the 1904 cutbacks which were caused by the recession, the Native Affairs Department consisted of a White staff of 5 Native Commissioners and 20 sub-commissioners, assisted by approximately 200 Africans. This was in contrast with the 8 Native Commissioners, 12 sub-commissioners and 100 veldkonets in Republican times. The African population of the Transvaal in 1904 numbered just under one million. No wonder that Lagden complained to the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Arthur Lawley, of the tendency of the Transvaal Government to put the Native Affairs Department "at the bottom of the class".

Expenditure on African education during this period was sparse. In 1903-4, the paltry sum of £5 000 was utilized to subsidize White missionary efforts. Although this was to double over the next few years, Government expenditure and involvement remained modest in contrast to expense and involvement in White education where £377 883 was spent in 1903—4, and £390331 in 1906-7,33 Whilst the Secretary for Native Education was to announce that there was "an ever-increasing demand (for education) manifest amongst natives throughout the colony",34 he also went on record as saying that, "if a larger sum (than £10 000) were placed on the estimates, the Department would find it hard to utilize it". There was little action to match he professed good intentions.

In 1906, the Transvaal Native Congress sent a petition to the House of Commons protesting about the treatment of Africans in the Transvaal, as well as voicing fears for their future in a self-governing Transvaal. Prominent amongst their grievances was taxation. The petitioners claimed that the purpose of the £2 tax was to force Africans to seek paid employment. They also claimed that Africans were paying for the war fought by Britain and the Boers. They pointed out that if Transvaal Africans had to pay their "fair burden of the expenditure", were Africans in other colonies, who paid considerably less, paying their full share?

Linked closely with taxation was the issue of compensation to Africans who had experienced direct losses as a result of wartime activities. Of 16 000 claims assessed at £667 000, just over 10 000 were met and received £87 517. For each pound assessed, 3s 5d was paid.37 Nearly 6 000 claims wereunsettled. It should be noted that one member of the Native Affairs Department believed that only one in four Africans eligible for compensation actually claimed, because of a lack of documentary proof.38 To the Congress, this was a "grave grievance" when so many Africans had stood by Britain when her "supremacy" was at stake. This was in great contrast to the generous treatment received by Britain's former enemies.

Izwi Labantu, edited by Walter Rubasana and A.K. Soga, was very critical of Transvaal taxation policies and argued that the Transvaal Government administered the colony on behalf of the Randlords. It blamed The Star, with its pleas for higher taxation, for policies recommended by the South African Native Affairs Commission and implemented by Lagden. In an editorial, entitled "The Doctrine of Force", Izwi argued that the mines relied on "forced labour" recruited through heavy taxation and military coercion. The aggressive editorial concluded with a strong warning to the Transvaal Government and the Randlords. They were reminded, "Native sentiment is stronger than plutocratic gold and the instinct of self-preservation is not the monopoly of the plutocrats".

There is evidence to suggest that questionable methods were regularly employed to extract taxes. General Tobias Smuts brought a former Boer general one such example to light. He complained to the Attorney General that members of the South African Constabulary, who were collecting taxes, had arrested several African youths under the age of sixteen years who were working on his farm, because they had not paid taxes. Smuts's concern was that he might lose valuable labour rather than the legality of the arrests. Solomon reacted by issuing instructions that a little more care should be taken, but that all males over eighteen years should be taxed, even thought knew that the courts would interpret "adult male" as twenty-one years," There were at least three incidents in which cattle were seized from old women when they were unable to produce tax certificates for their late husbands. On each occasion, Lawley had to issue warnings that such behaviour should cease. No other action was taken.42 Finally; Lagden was adamant that the coloured Buys family from the Cape, then resident in the Transvaal, should pay taxes, even though they were not liable. Despite the fact till Solomon had reprimanded Lagden, and ordered him to cease taxing them, Lagden was reluctant to do this, because, as he noted on Solomon's note, "how injudicious it would be to let them get out of control".

To Lagden, taxation was a very useful coercive measure. There is considerable evidence to suggest that many Africans experienced genuine difficulties in meeting their tax obligations. It should be noted that much of the Transvaal, especially the lower, outlying areas, experienced widespread drought, and consequently, obtained vastly reduced crop yields. Whilst 300 had been prosecuted in 1903^- for not paying taxes, the 1904—5 figure rose to 1 500.44 This led Solomon, acting as Lieutenant-Governor, to tackle Lagden on the issue because, despite what Milner had told Chamberlain in 1901 about the reduction in tax rates, he was convinced that Africans found British-levied taxes heavier and more onerous than those of the Republic.45 In this, he was supported by a senior Native Commissioner, C.A. Wheelwright. He believed that the tax on polygamists, as implemented after 1902, was extremely harsh and resulted in many older women being abandoned by their husbands who could then avoid payment of the tax on additional wives.46 No doubt most Whites continued to regard this tax favourably as it was detrimental to polygamists.

Towards the end of Crown Colony rule, there were two changes in taxation. The first was a reduction to £1 for the poll tax for bona fide agricultural workers who provided three months labour for a White landowner.47 This was the result of a general campaign by White landowners, who, as noted, had been able to secure labour by exempting their labourers from taxation during Republican times. Such a move was favoured by Lagden and had been recommended by the South African Native Affairs Commission. The reason for this was to enable commercial farmers to attract increased amounts of labour.

The move was strongly, but unsuccessfully, opposed by W. Windham, Secretary of Native Affairs. He argued against Government interference in the labour market and objected to the estimated loss of £50 000 in state revenue.48 Those Africans who were permanent residents in municipal locations, and who paid local taxes, were also exempted from paying the full amount.

However, in both categories, it should be noted that the underlying motive was not really to alleviate African hardship but to assist White employers in attracting increased amounts of labour at lower wage levels. It should be realized that very few White landowners could afford to pay wages likely to attract sufficient labour to meet their needs, hence, the prevalence of sharecropping.

The second reduction was that the tax on polygamists was dropped in 1906. This was largely due to Selborne and his desire to placate Africans before the granting of responsible government in 1907.49 He was well aware that some officials in the Colonial Office, as well as members of the West Ridgeway Commission, felt that the welfare of Transvaal Africans had been neglected by the Milner administration.

When Union was established, it was decided that although there would be a common Native Affairs Department, African taxation would remain, as it existed in the different provinces, despite the great discrepancies in applicable rates. A uniform system came into existence in 1925 with the Native Taxation and Development Act. By this Act, all Africans within the Union paid a uniform poll tax of £1 per annum, whilst those living in designated reserves paid an additional 10s.51 Whilst this Act may be criticised as regards its application to the Union as a whole, it certainly brought consider able relief to Africans in the Transvaal. A further aspect that benefited the Africans was that one-fifth of the collected tax was to be automatically allocated to African education. Prior to 1925, the Transvaal contribution to taxation had averaged around £400 000, but in 1925, it was estimated that only £281 300 would be collected.

Whilst this study has been brief, it would appear that there is considerable evidence to support Hobson's allegations that taxation was being "prostituted" to serve the interests of the Randlords. The high rate of taxation, the efficiency of collection, the total revenue accrued, the paucity of expenditure on African society, the reluctance to grant exemptions, and the use of questionable methods of collection, provide sufficient evidence to suggest that for the period of reconstruction, taxation was a deliberate and calculated means of exploiting and oppressing the African population of the Transvaal.

Source:

XIX 1987

<<<BACK>>>