of slums”. Councillors like M.J. Louw, J.C. Hofmeyr, G.A. Ashley and A. Zoutendyk bore the brunt of the criticism. In the election of August 1880 the Cape Times expressed its support to “reformers” – people like W. Fleming, W.M. Farmer, H. Bolus, J.L. Brown, P.J. Stigant and A.R. McKenzie, all of whom were elected.7
With his election in 1882, Graaff, coming from the meat trade, which contributed to the awful conditions in the city, was initially grouped with the “Dirty Party” by the Cape Times. A contributing factor might have been that the paper regarded him as an Afrikaner who did not belong with the predominantly English-speaking “reformers”, a group mostly comprising successful businessmen and traders. Graaff, described by Merriman as “one of the new breed of pushy urban Afrikaners”,8 and his patron Combrinck both became supporters of the Afrikaner Bond over time. This new political movement, initially formed by Rev. S.J. du Toit, experienced a huge upsurge after the annexation of Transvaal by Shepstone. The subsequent revolt against British rule resulted in the First Boer War, in which the Boers triumphed at the Battle of Majuba on 27 February 1881.
Under the leadership of J.H. (Onze Jan) Hofmeyr, who wanted to co-ordinate the political aspirations of Afrikaners and whom Graaff regarded as his leader, the organisation grew by leaps and bounds. Hofmeyr, editor of De Zuid-Afrikaan, strove for a united South Africa under the motto Afrika voor de Afrikaners. Initially, in his Zuidafrikaanse Boeren Beschermings Vereniging (South African Society for the Protection of Farmers) he united the economic power of agricultural societies and became one of the most important political figures in the Cape Colony after the merger of the Afrikaner Bond and societies for the protection of farmers.9 In time the Afrikaner Bond proceeded to protect more than just the farmers’ interests, as it was joined by successful Afrikaner trade entrepreneurs, like Graaff, D.C. de Waal, G.J. Krige, A.B. de Villiers, C.W.H. Kohler, N.F. de Waal, P.G. Wege, M.M. Venter and others.10
Furthermore, the year 1882 became a milestone for stronger municipal management in Cape Town. That year, the colonial government provided more clarity about shifting the responsibilities between colonial and local government, after councillors had been ineffective for a number of years because of uncertainty about the exact extent of their responsibilities. The Cape Parliament passed legislation clearly stating the rights and duties of the Cape Town city council. In future the provision of water, butcheries, wash-houses and sewerage would be the exclusive responsibility of the city council.11
The smallpox epidemic that hit Cape Town in the same year was the worst of its kind in the city in more than a century. It forced the city fathers to take real action on behalf of the residents. At that stage about 40 000 people lived in the city itself, and a further 15 000 in the suburbs. The poorest communities were hardest hit, and Malays of the city and the Bo-Kaap revolted against the way they were being treated. From June to November 1882 the city council met almost daily. Water provision improved after the completion of the Molteno Reservoir in Oranjezicht the previous year, but the upgrading of sanitary facilities became imperative.12
Despite his Afrikaner roots, Graaff, who was becoming one of the most successful businessmen in the Cape, soon started supporting the “reformers” in their endeavour to clean up the city. As a businessman, he was a natural ally to them; however, he still he was one of many Cape Afrikaners who did not completely subject themselves to the process of anglification.13 This was also apparent later in his career: he would advocate development and progress without becoming estranged from Afrikaners, some of whom wanted to cut all imperial ties.
Critics of the “reformers” believed that the proponents of reform could afford the higher taxes for the cleaning process, since they would not be affected as badly by a relatively small levy on their properties. In addition, their business interests would benefit from the improvements and developments upon which the city council was embarking, and the value of their buildings in the central business district may increase. Besides, newspapers supporting them, like the Cape Times, Lantern and Cape Argus, were believed to be largely dependent on these businessmen for advertising revenue.14
On the other hand, it could be argued that, even if “liberal self-interest” had been mentioned, it could not be to everybody’s disadvantage. Cape Town would remain backward without the initiative of “reformers” like that, even though modernisation would be to their advantage. The growth and expansion of Cape Town indeed demanded a new type of councillor – those who had experience of the challenges of urban development. At the same time, money had to be borrowed on an unprecedented scale, and for that businessmen like Graaff, with their financial background, would be a great asset in the provision of municipal services. Besides, Graaff had already been abroad and had gained experience about the role municipal revamping could play to improve urban conditions.15
In June 1882 he took out membership to the reading room of the Cape Chamber of Commerce, of which he became a full member in 1886.16 Popular among Cape businessmen, the reading room gave him access to a variety of publications on financial and economic issues.
The newspaper campaign in favour of the “reformers”, together with feelings of disgust at the smallpox epidemic of 1882, contributed to the victory of the “Clean Party” in the municipal election that year. According to the Cape Times, the “Clean Party” secured a majority of eight to six, with four “neutral”, though Stigant and O’Reilly, previously regarded as “reformers”, also counted among the latter group.17 Despite the fact that the paper did not regard Graaff as belonging to the “Clean Party”, he was elected for one year, 16th out of the 18 elected members, with 526 votes.18
Cape Town experienced an economic downturn in the first five years after Graaff’s election as councillor.19 Yet from 1883 his support among voters increased. In wards 2 and 3, the central business district, he was the candidate attracting the most votes that year. In the 1887 election he stood as candidate for the Ratepayers’ Protection Association.20
Despite being just 23 years old, he made an increasingly good impression on the city fathers, with his business acumen and refreshing determination to improve the facilities of the city they were serving.21 Over time it became clear that Graaff, who evidently belonged to the “Clean Party”, was exactly the kind of member the city council needed. The taxpayers obviously also realised that, since between 1882 and 1894 he was always among the councillors drawing the highest number of votes.22 The “reformers” would dominate the Cape Town city council for the next two decades. He supported their insistence on better sanitation in the city to such an extent that he associated with their demand that the abattoir, the Shambles, be closed down due to the conditions.
Dissatisfaction with the primitive abattoir in Adderley Street increased to such an extent that the matter was brought to a head in 1883. Colonel Anthony Reynolds Vivyan Crease, Commander of the Royal Engineers in the nearby barracks of the imperial garrison, sued the city council on the grounds that the Shambles was a public disturbance and had to be removed. The case in the Supreme Court was deemed so important that the attorney-general appeared for the plaintiff and Sir Thomas Upington, QC, and Advocate W.P. Schreiner, subsequent Cape prime minister, for the defendant.
Initially, after conducting an inspection, a jury ruled that the abattoir indeed had to be removed, but the city council lodged an appeal. A full bench led by the chief justice, Sir John Henry de Villiers (the subsequent lord), heard the appeal. An inspection was carried out one morning, shortly after the slaughter of a number of animals. As the judges, accompanied by the lawyers, were walking to the beach where the foul-smelling sewerage system was flowing into the ocean, the fate of Shambles was sealed. In the judgement delivered at the end of 1883, Justice De Villiers said the least that could be expected from the city council was that the livestock should be slaughtered elsewhere. Therefore, he issued an order to prohibit the slaughter of animals at the Shambles and that the abattoir should be moved.23
The result of the court order was that the Cape municipality had to establish its own abattoir. This “setback”, however, presented Graaff with an opportunity. Combrinck & Co. got the chance not only to install its own
