Colonial Race Laws Drew a Line Between Hottentots and Coloureds

When most people hear “Prohibition” they think of 1920s America and the ban on alcohol that lasted until 1933. South Africa had its own version, but it worked differently. Under the Liquor Act, the prohibition applied only to “natives”. The 1929 case of _Samuel Becker v The Crown_ shows exactly how that category was applied – and how the law treated Hottentots as a separate grouping from Coloured people.

The case centred on Samuel Becker, licensee of the Boston Hotel in Bellville. He was charged with selling liquor to natives on four occasions, contrary to the Liquor Act. Becker appealed to the Supreme Court before Judge-President Gardiner and Mr. Justice van Zyl. The Crown was represented by Attorney-General S. de Jager, K.C., and the defence by Mr. Alexander, K.C.

Two of the charges involved sales to men who testified in court that they were Hottentots. The Magistrate accepted this and convicted Becker. A third charge involved a sale to another man who also claimed to be Hottentot. On those three counts the convictions stood and Becker was fined £2 per count.

Bruinmense were not automatically classed as native

The fourth charge was different. It involved a woman to whom liquor had been supplied. She described herself as a “bruinmens” – a Coloured person – but could not say definitively what her racial background was. The Judge-President ruled that for a conviction to stand, the prosecution had to prove with certainty that she was either a Bushman or a Hottentot, because those were the groups covered by the Act’s definition of “native”. The evidence was not clear enough, so the Court quashed that conviction.

This distinction mattered. In the language of the 1929 Liquor Act, “native” included Hottentots and Bushmen, but not Coloured people as a whole. The Court’s handling of the case shows that the law drew a line between Hottentots and Coloureds, treating them as separate categories. A person who identified as “bruinmens” was not automatically classed as a native under the Act, and therefore not automatically prohibited from buying liquor.

Colonial Race Laws Enacted for Control and Segregation

The Becker case is more than a footnote in legal history. It captures how racial categories were constructed and enforced in everyday life in the Cape. The Act used “native” in a narrow, legal sense that included Hottentots, while Coloured people occupied a different legal space. In practice, this meant that identity and self-description could determine whether someone fell under the prohibition.

Beyond the courtroom, the case reflects the wider tensions of the time. The Liquor Act was about control and segregation, but its enforcement depended on testimony, appearance, and the Court’s interpretation of identity. The fact that three Hottentot men’s testimony was accepted, while the Coloured woman’s was not, shows how the law was applied selectively and inconsistently.

The Becker case preserves a lesser-known part of South Africa’s prohibition history. It reminds us that when the law said “natives only”, it meant a specific grouping – Hottentots and Bushmen – and that Coloured people were not included in that definition. That separation, written into statute and tested in court, is part of how racial categories were managed in the colonial Union of South Africa.