favourable rail tariffs were in direct opposition to the interests of Cape farmers.
The founding of the Charter Company meant Rhodes acquired enormous powers to exploit the mineral resources of Rhodesia, a process that had begun in 1888 with the signing of the Rudd Concession by paramount chief Lobengula of Matabeleland. Rhodes assured various members of the Afrikaner Bond that with his expansionist policy he wanted to explore Rhodesia on behalf of the Afrikaners, with the result that the Bond unanimously approved a resolution in favour of the Charter Company at its congress in March 1890.6
After the establishment of the British South Africa Company Rhodes handed out shares in the new company, to some members of the Afrikaner Bond as well, but by far the most went to smaller English shareholders in Kimberley and abroad, in most cases not more than a few hundred at par. From a letter written by the company secretary, F. Rutherfoord Harris, about South African shareholders it appeared that there were two allotments of the 69 434 paid-up shares at three shillings apiece. Graaff received one allotment, 750 shares at par. Hofmeyr’s brother Tielman Johannes Roos Hofmeyr got two allotments, 1 000 + 2 000, and his brother-in-law, David C. de Waal, 1 500 + 1 000. Initially Rhodes himself, with 10 000 shares, held the largest stake, but with a second allotment his partner Frank Johnson received 8 000 shares in addition to his earlier 4 000.7
Apparently Rhodes tried to garner support for his intrigues by means of unprincipled favour. However, that does not provide sufficient proof that that had been decisive in the Afrikaner Bond’s support for him; there were underlying motives. Smuts later also said the main reason for the Afrikaner Bond’s support was that Rhodes was “squaring”:
“To say that this was the result of indirect bribery and corruption is ludicrously unjust. Some Dutch members of parliament and some people may have materially benefited from Rhodes’s friendship; but a people cannot be bribed in the vulgar sense.”8
Hofmeyr’s rapport with Rhodes, which developed gradually, was mainly based on personal friendship and the perception of a shared view and interest. In his case, material benefit was the grease, rather than the engine.9
Hofmeyr was the most important figure in the inner circle of Rhodes’s friends in the Afrikaner Bond. Another friend was D.C. de Waal, who accompanied Rhodes on his travels to the north. Graaff was good friends with all these prominent figures in Cape politics. Rhodes was the guest of honour at a dinner hosted by De Waal the night before his departure for Britain on 14 January 1891. Among the other guests attending De Waal’s “delicious Cape table” in his house on Bellevue, his wine and fruit farm at the upper end of Kloof Street in Cape Town, were a number of Afrikaner Bond members, including Graaff, his oud-oom Combrinck, Onze Jan Hofmeyr, his brother Tielman and James Sivewright. De Waal’s biographer described it as a “real brotherly party”.10
At the start of his parliamentary career Graaff focused mainly on municipal matters, railway issues and agricultural interests. At times that reveals the paradox between Graaff the urbanised businessman and Graaff the farmer with the rural background.
In one of his first speeches in Parliament on 26 August 1982 he proposed a motion that the strictest quarantine measures possible be taken against the rapid spread of cholera. He pointed out that the deadly epidemic had spread from St Petersburg to Hamburg. Steam ships were constantly sailing from Hamburg to South Africa. Another danger zone was Mecca, from where pilgrims returned to South Africa. He read from correspondence to him by Dr. Lawrence Herman, who would later play an important part in his career, and proposed that a medical official should immediately go aboard every ship arriving in South African harbours, and that the Cape government should co-operate with Natal on this matter. The motion was carried.11
The next day in the Legislative Council, Graaff, still a Cape Town city councillor, dealt with a report by a select committee about a drainage system for Cape Town and Woodstock, the system Graaff promoted at municipal level. The Cape Town Municipal Bill was passed without amendment.12 Consequently, the Dunscombe Scheme to get rid of the city sewage was implemented in Cape Town a few years later.13
Graaff’s parliamentary contribution on health matters was in keeping with the steps he had taken at the municipal level. As mayor, he had appointed a sanitary committee the previous year, a matter he regarded as so urgent that he did it himself without consulting the city council. This is regarded as probably his most significant contribution to the improved sanitation of Cape Town.14 Medical officials were appointed on a permanent basis. Their duty was to monitor the city, act urgently against diseases, inform the city council of the outbreak of communicable diseases and report defective sanitation.15 The scheme for clean water in the city also became a reality during his term as mayor, although the first steps towards better sanitation for the city had already been taken after the smallpox epidemic of 1882.16
Graaff’s involvement with the Cape Town city council is also apparent from his speech in the debate about the Liesbeek Ordinance Amendment Bill, which provided for levies on roads of the divisional council. He argued that there were seven municipalities between Sea Point and Wynberg through which roads of the divisional council ran, yet Cape Town and Sea Point were paying half of the taxes. He advocated that all the municipalities should have to pay taxes for the roads on an equal basis.17 In that way he confirmed his commitment and loyalty to the Cape Town city council.
Graaff’s involvement with the railways should be seen in the context of his business activities, which were dependent on the railways for transporting livestock and the provision of refreshments and supplies to stations and canteens. In his last mayor’s minute he had already referred to the importance of goods traffic:
“The Government has been forging the States of South Africa together by an important system of trunk railways and Cape Town has gained and the trade of the City is in a healthy condition.”18
In his first speech about the railways in the Legislative Council he opposed a proposal that labourers on the railway lines only be paid in cash, rather than in cash and rations. The idea was that it would prevent theft, but Graaff believed it would be expensive and render the construction and maintenance of railway lines impractical. The government train provided supplies to teams of labourers monthly and the system was functioning well; therefore, he suggested that the proposal be withdrawn.19
He also supported the majority finding of a select committee opposing railway councils for the future administration of the railways. He feared such councils may cause friction and the shirking of responsibility, and that they would do far worse than under the current management. He pointed out that the proceeds indicated that the railways were operating quite profitably compared with those in other countries.20
Graaff’s agricultural interests may have played a role in his public activities. When it was proposed that £4 000 of the Legislative Council’s budget to import stud stallions should be withdrawn, he strongly opposed it. Graaff, himself the owner of imported Arab horses, declared there was not enough entrepreneurial spirit to import full-blood horses. Good horses would fetch high prices, since mining magnates were prepared to pay a lot if the horses were worth it. At the same time he criticised the farmers, expressing his surprise that, whenever government was willing to spend money on behalf of the farmers, they were always the first to oppose it.21
It is true that Graaff helped protect agricultural interests. In his first year in the Legislative Council he became a member of the agricultural committee; he also served in the select committee on labour, which found there was ample labour available, but that farmers had to be prepared to pay higher wages and pay more attention to industrial training. The committee recommended that children should not remain in primary schools longer than was necessary because it interrupted the supply of labour.22
On more than one occasion in the Legislative Council Graaff declared himself in favour of the Scab Act. The act was introduced in 1887 to prevent the spread of scab in sheep and goats. Many farmers opposed the act because
