East London Ferry Token, East London, South Africa
(Source: Dr Keith Tankard, Knowledge4Africa)
Read more about East London history here
The first pontoon was provided by the British Kaffrarian Government in 1858, as a means of allowing the newly arrived German settlers to cross from Panmure on the east bank to East London on the west bank.
In 1865, when British Kaffraria was annexed into the Cape Colony, the pontoon was taken over by the East London Divisional Council. It was then bought by the East London Town Council in 1874, and would remain the only means for vehicles to cross the Buffalo River until the temporary railway bridge was constructed in 1907.
A ferry was established at East London in April 1875, so as to provide a more frequent river crossing for pedestrians.
Initially a fee of 3d was set for anybody using the ferry between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m., and a shilling for night crossings. In May 1877, however, the Municipal Board decided to introduce books of paper tickets to relieve the passengers of the necessity of carrying money and, at the same time, the fare was dropped from 3d to 1d per crossing if a coupon was used. The continual production of the paper tickets, however, proved costly and so in February 1880 the Council decided to mint bronze ferry tokens which it could then re-cycle. The ferry tokens were minted in East London by Wetzlar and Hammerschlag.
[There seems to be some debate as to whether the ferry tokens were initially minted due to the shortage of small change, and whether or not, they were then used as small change over the whole Border area, from Queenstown to East London].
The Ferryman Button Saga
In September 1875 William Button was appointed to the position of Ferryman operating the municipal ferry which crossed the Buffalo River, carrying passengers from the West Bank to the East Bank. He was to use his own boat for which he was paid the sum of 30s per month, to be increased to 50s in April 1876, in addition to a salary of £10 per month as ferryman.
Billy Button, as he was commonly known, proved a decidedly unreliable boatman and it is surprising that the municipality kept him in service for such a length of time. Complaints had already started to pour in within the first month of his appointment, ranging from accusations that he was negligent in his duty by "running about the town", to charges that he was refusing to ferry passengers across the river after dark. The Municipal Board took little action over these early charges, despite the fact that its Chairman had been personally affected. It did, however, recognise that the ferryman could not be expected to work a 24 hour day without help and so provided him with an African assistant.Button was then warned that the ferry would be required to operate between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and that the Municipal Board wished to hear no further complaints about him.
Objections to his behavior nevertheless continued to be placed before the Board. He was again accused of refusing to ferry people across the river after dark and of being drunk and absent from duty. Once again the Municipal Board issued him with a warning. He was eventually fired in January 1877 because he was found to be often absent from duty and, as a result, his Black assistant was frequently required to work all day. Furthermore, his treatment of his assistants was such that no-one was prepared to work for him for any length of time.
That was not the end of the Ferryman Button saga. Within two weeks he was again on the river, having established his own ferry for which he had obtained a licence from the Harbour Master. The Town Council was incensed and Councillor John Gately claimed that the Harbor Master had totally overstepped himself by issuing such a licence, arguing that the pontoon, and therefore the ferry, was part of the public road and the fee was an established municipal toll which no-one within a certain distance could evade by establishing his own ferry. The Council decided to place the matter in the hands of a solicitor and, should opinion favour the municipality, legal action would be taken.
Advice on the Button case was received in mid-February but unfortunately the Municipal Council decided that the contents of the letter could not be published for the time being, probably because the term of office of the Council was almost over. Indeed, that was its final meeting and therefore, if legal action was to be taken, the task would fall to the new body. Since all correspondence over that incident has been lost, however, there is no way of knowing what advice the Municipal Council was given.
The ferry case took a strange turn once the second Council took up office. Despite Button's repeated misdemeanor, he was allowed to continue to ply the river until June 1877, at which stage the ferry lease was again sold and Button was warned that "immediate action" would be taken against him if he continued to contravene the municipal ferry regulations. The sale, however, placed the Board in an awkward position. The members had not yet learned that such a lease should be put out to tender, which would have given them a degree of control over the proceedings. Instead, a system of auction was used which meant that the lease went to the highest bidder. That proved to be Billy Button himself and the municipality was forced to re-employ him as its official ferryman. This time, however, his term of office was to be short-lived and he was again fired in August 1877 on the recommendation of the East Bank Street Committee, although no reason for the action was recorded.
Nothing more was heard of Button until September 1880 when he again applied for a licence to operate the municipal ferry, alongside a certain John Macaen. Their applications were inexplicably granted but in January 1881 he was again in trouble when the municipal secretary brought a charge of incivility against him, for which he was commanded to make "ample apology" and face immediate withdrawal of his licence should he repeat the offence. Button chose to apologise.
In the meantime the municipality's legal status had changed with the passing of the Incorporation Act in July 1880. Article 38 of the new Act dealt with the Town Council's right to issue various bye-laws, of which the municipal ferry was part but the Council procrastinated and 20 months were to pass before it turned its attention to framing a new regulation to govern the ferry. In the meantime, it rested on the belief that, in accordance with Article 1 of the Act, all previous regulations would remain in force until they were either rescinded or replaced.
In December 1881 an extraordinary case of municipal bungling led to a number of legal battles against Button and his colleagues. In May 1877 the Board had decided to introduce ferry tokens. The ferryman was required, on the 28th day of each month, to take out a licence (costing £5) to operate his boats and, at the same time, he redeemed all the ferry-tokens which had been collected that month. On the morning of 28 November 1881 Button had duly delivered his tokens but his cheque was only paid to him in mid-afternoon because the Mayor's signature could not be obtained. By that time the bank was already closed and so Button could not cash his cheque till the following morning and, until he had done so, he had insufficient money to pay the levy.
The next day Button duly visited the bank and then attempted to renew his ferry licence. He was refused on the direct instructions of the Mayor on the grounds that he should have acquired it the previous day and had already been plying his ferry that morning without a licence. Button thereupon decided to defy the Board and continued to ferry privately, to which the Council responded by prosecuting him. The case came before the Resident Magistrate in December 1881 and he was fined 30s.
Button immediately appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Incorporation Act of 1880 had superseded the Municipal Ordinance of 1836 under which the East London Municipality had been established. Since no new regulation had been drawn up under the new Act, it was illegal for the municipality to force him to take out a licence at all and the case, he argued, was in fact beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. Furthermore, there was no regulation to stipulate how much the municipality could charge for a licence and so the fee of £5 was illegal. The Chief Justice stated in his verdict that the case was "not free from doubt". No licence fee could be charged, he said, unless it had been authorised by regulation and the Governor had given his assent. Although Button had clearly violated the municipal regulations which forbade any person from plying as a ferryman without authority or licence, it was nevertheless true that the only reason he had not been given the necessary authority was that he had not paid the licence fee. Since that had been an illegal demand, the case had to be decided in Button's favour.
In March 1882 the Council published a notice in the East London Dispatch which forbade persons from plying as a "common ferryman or waterman" without the municipal authority, a restriction based on its regulation of February 1879, and the notice further claimed the power to issue monthly licences at a sum which it could resolve upon "from time to time". A ferryman was then hired. In the meantime Button and two other ex-municipal ferrymen, Jacob Williams and John Macaen, continued to ply the river without licences. The Council decided to seek a court interdict against them, pending the result of yet another case which was being brought before the Eastern Districts Court to establish the municipality's right to the ferry. The three men were immediately brought before the Circuit Court, which happened to be sitting in East London at that moment, despite Button's protest that the case could not be raised again as it had already been fought in the Supreme Court.
Button claimed in his defence that he was the holder of a ferry licence which had been issued by the Port Captain at East London under Act 16 of 1857. He testified that he had approached the Town Clerk for a municipal ferry licence but it had been refused with no reasons given. He further argued that the banks of the Buffalo River, together with the waterway itself, did not belong to the municipality at all but to the Government as it was part of the harbour. His Government ferry licence was therefore sufficient and the municipality had no right to demand an additional municipal one. The Circuit Court came to no conclusion. The application for the interdict had not been introduced until late in the evening on the last day of the court's sitting and so there was insufficient time to reach a satisfactory verdict. The judge, moreover, believed that, as the matter had already been before the Supreme Court, it would be better to have it fully discussed in the Eastern Districts Court.
As a result, the interdict was refused but the ferrymen were ordered to keep an account of their earnings pending the outcome of the further legal battle. The costs of the case were also reserved for the consideration of the Eastern Districts Court. Notice to appear in that Court was served on the men early in April 1882, together with an interdict to restrain them from plying the river as ferrymen. In addition, they were ordered to surrender an account of all their takings since mid-March. The case was heard early in June and the verdict again went against the municipality. In his judgement, the Judge President explained that a municipal ferry had not been sufficiently "established" after the passing of the Incorporation Act. It was not sufficient, he stated, simply to employ a man as ferryman and place him there.
In short, the Council had blundered by leasing out the ferry when no bye-law existed to allow them to do so and the action had resulted in the ferry being effectively transferred out of the hands of the Council. Had the municipality applied Article 52 of the old regulations rigidly, there would have been no case. The fact that the Board had failed to do so and, subsequent to the promulgation of the Incorporation Act, had also failed to pass a new bye-law meant that a loophole had been left which had allowed the defendants to avoid prosecution even though they were probably acting illegally. The municipal action was therefore dismissed with costs.
Although William Lance, the Municipal Solicitor, did not agree with the judgement and strongly urged an appeal against it, the Council decided to adopt the court's recommendation that a watertight ferry regulation needed to be promulgated. The regulation which had been passed in March was not considered sufficient and, in any case, the Council had again blundered in that only eight members had attended that meeting, one short of the number for a quorum. The bye-law had therefore also been illegal. The additional regulation was therefore passed by the Council in June 1882 and was promulgated in October.
The ferry case, however, had still not yet been laid to rest. Both Billy Button and Jacob Williams had the temerity to tender for the position of municipal ferryman when it was advertised in October 1882, but they were overlooked by the Council despite the fact that their tenders were the cheapest. Button thereupon continued his defiance by ferrying without municipal authority but now the Council's case was watertight and he was prosecuted in the Circuit Court in March 1883. The councilors had nevertheless learnt a hard lesson from the Button saga, namely that greater care had to be taken in future when formulating regulations and it was not enough to frame bye-laws with abandon in the hope that nobody would challenge them. Furthermore, the municipality's claim to enact regulations which governed the river and its banks was still in doubt. Although the municipal right to the ferry had been secured, other issues (such as power to regulate bathing from the banks of the river) were still in contention and the municipality hesitated to attempt prosecutions in the future.
Posted by Pinkx BidOrBuy 2008 - Thanks
150 and a Crazy 511
.All Text and Images are @ Copyright 2015-20XX All Rights Reserved Contact Website owner for permission to use.