of Combrinck & Co.
The buildings of the old Shambles, including that of Combrinck & Co., stood next to the Cape Town station, which, in turn, lay close to the sea and almost adjacent to the historic castle. The station at the lower end of Adderley Street, from where all passengers departed on the main line to the north, became quite busy from 1890, when suburban trains to Simon’s Town were introduced. The only way to extend the railway was to the location where Combrinck & Co. had been doing business for 60 years. This entailed expropriation. Combrinck & Co. was notified by the general manager of the railways, Charles Bletterman Elliot, that it should find alternative premises and would receive compensation. However, the company, conveniently located close to the harbour, station and market, was not prepared to put up with this. James Keddie Stephenson, a Scot already regarded as the capable manager of Combrinck & Co., entered the battlefield on behalf of the company. Stephenson, who had emigrated to South Africa in 1881, had grown along with Combrinck & Co. since joining Graaff and the rest in 1884. He married May Enslin, daughter of a member of the Free State Volksraad, George Frederick Enslin. He displayed a singular talent for the business world and wrote thousands of letters on behalf of the company over the next few years.7
In a letter dated 10 April 1893 to Charles Elliot, Stephenson contended that the removal would bring about major losses. Before an estimate of compensation could be made, government was required to indicate which alternative premises it had in mind, although it seemed impossible to find such premises, said Stephenson. This was followed by correspondence and meetings between the two parties that continued for several months. Eventually the railways appointed a sworn valuer who appraised the premises and buildings of Combrinck & Co. at the seafront at £8 000, but the Graaff brothers were not prepared to accept a penny less than £77 000. Further correspondence concluded with an ultimatum by the commissioner of crown land, John Laing, to Combrinck & Co. on 1 May 1894: “I hereby give you formal notice that it is the intention of the Government to proceed to… the expropriation according to the usual provision of law.”8
David Graaff was visiting Britain for business while the wrangling continued. When he received a cable about the crisis, he cancelled a cruise to New York and returned to Cape Town on the next available ship. Combrinck & Co. wrote an offended letter to government:
“[We] had suffered enormous expenditure, loss and inconvenience. Mr. Graaff was in England on his way to America and Australia in connection with the extension of the firm’s business. His plans had been all arranged when he received a cable calling upon him to return. He has been delayed here for eight months solely on account of the expropriation…”9
When no outcome could be reached on the issue in the Cape Parliament, it became clear that only impartial arbitration presented a way out. It started on 26 February 1895 in the offices of the Colonial Orphan Chamber at Church Square in Cape Town. The railways appointed Captain Charles Henry Jackson as arbitrator, and the choice of Combrinck & Co. was Jacobus Wilhelmus Sauer, well-known parliamentarian, a friend of Graaff’s and the father of Paul Sauer, in later years a minister. A third arbitrator, George William Steytler, was appointed to pronounce on the matter in the event of the voting resulting in a tie.
Combrinck & Co. was represented in the hearing by Van Zyl & Buissiné, a prominent law firm. Its senior partner was Casper Hendrik van Zyl, father of Gideon Brand van Zyl, in later years a partner, who would become the first South African-born governor-general (1945–1950). The legal advisor to the railways was J. & H. Reid & Nephew. In advance the legal representatives agreed to “in the most absolute and irrevocable manner” accept the compensation the three arbitrators decided upon, and that it would be made an order of the Supreme Court regardless of anything else. A binding contract was drawn up that was signed by the different parties on 9 February 1895.
The result of the arbitration was announced on 2 March 1895. Two of the three arbitrators, with Jackson in the minority, agreed that compensation of no less than £55 000 should be paid to Combrinck & Co. by the colonial government, which also had to pay the arbitration costs of £110.
Rhodes’s government and his finance minister, Sir Gordon Sprigg, could hardly have been happy about this conclusion, because back then £55 000 was an enormous amount. When Rhodes and Sprigg heard that Graaff was on his way to the Supreme Court to apply that the arbitration amount be declared a final court order, they argued that “the defence will be that in view of the unreasonableness of the amount the Government will not expropriate”. Graaff informed Charles Elliot that had government steered clear of arbitration and tried instead to reach a private settlement, it would have been much better off. If Elliot conveyed this to the premier, Graaff’s statement would certainly not have made him more popular with Rhodes. Rhodes could not stand not getting his own way.10
The hearing in the Supreme Court started a week later on 9 March. Chief Justice Sir Henry de Villiers, and Justice Thomas Upington, a former premier, heard the arguments of Advocate James Rose Innes, QC (for Combrinck & Co.) and Advocate Henry Juta, QC (for the Rhodes government).
Charles Elliot stated in an affidavit that government no longer believed expropriation was justified, since the amount was much higher than what parliament had envisaged. If the premises were not expropriated, Combrinck & Co. could remain there and the whole matter would be disposed of. The chief justice, however, did not agree. He pointed out the binding contract and that, although the amount surely was very large, there was no allegation of any bias or misconduct on the side of the arbitrators. If a smaller amount had been awarded, the applicant would have been bound to accept it. He granted Graaff’s application with costs, and Justice Upington concurred.11
For the government’s part more efforts were made to get out of the predicament. Various offers, including one in a letter by Charles Elliot, were made to the Graaffs, but they would not budge. The cheque for £55 000 came in very handy; some believe it was the basis on which Graaff’s wealth was built.12
Despite the dispute about expropriation, it became clear to Graaff that Combrinck & Co. would have to leave its Strand Street premises sooner or later. The new premises still had to be as close to the Table Bay harbour as possible. One of the reasons was that the Cape Chamber of Commerce and the Fruitgrowers’ Association, as well as members of Parliament, had approached Combrinck & Co. to install refrigerator rooms for fruit to be shipped to Europe. For that purpose, Combrinck’s new refrigerator rooms in Newmarket Street were too far from the harbour because the fruit had to be transported in the middle of summer. But where could the stores be located?
Few people knew Cape Town better than Graaff, ex-mayor and still city councillor. He realised the advantages of reclaiming the foreshore beyond Strand Street and the Waterfront – the street names indicating how far the seawater came back in those times. Reclamation of the fish market of Roggebaai would make it possible to considerably expand the relatively small plot of level ground between the seafront and Table Mountain.
Combrinck & Co. approached the Table Bay Harbour Council about reclaiming land, and an urgent meeting was held on 8 November 1894, with Graaff and other members of his company present. He suggested that the area between the two jetties next to Dock Road at the lower end of Bree Street be reclaimed from the ocean. It was conveniently close to the harbour and the railway lines ran next to the beachfront.
The Harbour Council, no doubt aware of additional income from the export trade as well as municipal taxes, agreed to the reclamation plan. Graaff would be able to establish his new head office there, which explains why he had resisted to such an extent the railway’s expropriation plans.
The conditions Graaff had to comply with were set out in a letter from the Table Bay Harbour Council, dated 8 November 1894 and signed by Frank Robb.13 Before Graaff could proceed with the new project, however, parliamentary approval was needed. Further differences of opinion and delays followed until an agreement was reached, which was signed by the three Graaff brothers and Sir Gordon Sprigg, finance minister, on 10 July 1895.14 The colonial government agreed that Combrinck & Co. “[should] reclaim from the sea a piece of land, in extent 38 799 square yards, between the North Wharf and the old Coaling Wharf”. The company, which undertook to complete the work within 12 months, could also purchase the adjacent grounds beyond Dock Road from the Harbour Council,