Sixty years ago tomorrow, Etienne Dupuch moved a resolution in the House of Assembly that was to change life in the Bahamas forever and pave the way for the modern independent country we now know. Twelve years later, Eileen Carron, who had been in the House on that momentous night reporting for The Tribune, looked back at how the end of racial discrimination had led to Majority Rule and a loss of perspective over the role her father and editor, who later became Sir Etienne, had played. This is the report Mrs Carron – now the long serving Publisher/Editor of The Tribune – wrote on December 30, 1967.

ON the night of January 23, 1956, a member of the House of Assembly rose to his feet and moved a Resolution asking members to go on record as deploring “discrimination in hotels, theatres and other places in the Colony against persons on account of their race or colour”. Such discrimination, said the Resolution, was “not in the public interest”.

At that time and in that social climate it was an unpopular move. It was a fight that was to cost the Editor of The Tribune, the mover of the Resolution, serious financial loss. On the night of his Resolution he knew that he faced possible arrest. But he also knew that a principle was involved … a principle far bigger and more important than himself, his personal loss, or his personal security.

“Who of you tonight,” he asked the Speaker and 19 assemblymen present (eight had not attended, among them Mr Alvin Braynen, present Speaker of the House), “is prepared publicly to declare that a whole group of people should continue to live a life of daily and constant humiliation because it might mean the loss of some material gain. All the evidence in the world today dispels the fear of economic loss but even so, why should any legislative body, representing all the people, feel that they have a right to put a price on the pride, the dignity and the self respect of any section of the population entirely on the basis of accident of birth.

“I am not making this appeal for myself because today I am not affected by this condition. But I am pressing this matter in the name of human decency and in the interests of good government.

“The day is past in the world when classes and races can be divided by some cruel invisible line. The time has come when people all over the world have become conscious of the fact that human freedom is indivisible. It is a quality of mind that cannot be broken up into parcels and one group handed one set of freedoms and another given another set. There can be only one freedom – and it must be the equal and indivisible freedom of all the people.”

FOLLOWED

CONSCIENCE

The speech was moving, the content moderate, the presentation dignified.

One member, Dr Raymond Sawyer, admitted that he had come to the House that night to “vote the matter to a committee of the House”. In other words he was there to help “kill the motion”. However, he was impressed by what the mover of the Resolution had to say and at the risk of “making enemies” he followed his “conscience”. He voted for the Resolution.

Another member, also moved by events that night, broke tradition and sided with the supporters of the Resolution. The Hon Donald McKinney was “impressed with the moderation and restraint used in the matter”. He could not “accept the policy that men who were prepared to die for their country should be discriminated against”. He said he felt “very strongly on the matter” and advised members that “the longer we delay the greater the problem becomes”.

Sir Etienne Dupuch, Editor of The Tribune, had waged the battle for equal rights for all Bahamians for many years through the columns of The Tribune. It was an inherited battle. His father, Leon Dupuch, had established The Tribune in 1903 to fight the fight of the underdog – that included Bahamians of all races and all political hues.

From the day that he took over the editorial chair of The Tribune, Sir Etienne was recognised by friend and foe alike as a man of conviction, a man of courage. Many Bahamians drew inspiration from his courage.

STUDENT WRITES

On July 19, 1951, Sir Etienne received a letter from a Bahamian student expressing a desire to meet him. The Editor was visiting England, Scotland and Wales at the time as a guest of the British government. The student was reading law in London. It was one of many such letters that the Editor of this newspaper had received over the years.

“I am most anxious to make your acquaintance and to have a talk with you about affairs at home,” wrote the student. “I am an ardent admirer of your ‘guts’ ... I don’t mind having to travel out of London to see you as I am most anxious to meet you. I feel that I must not let this opportunity slip me.”

Today that student is the colony’s premier, the Hon Lynden O Pindling.

It was for men like Mr Pindling that the Editor fought to break down discrimination in the colony. In so doing, he nor his family had anything to gain. Theirs was only loss. But The Tribune was accustomed to losing business for championing unpopular reforms.

Overnight, The Tribune’s revenue dropped by £25,000. It was enough to wreck the institution. But there were a few men in the city – white men whose very rights to exist are being challenged by some of our coloured leaders today – who believed in the fight for the rights of the coloured man. It was these men who kept The Tribune going, and in so doing kept the battle for the coloured man alive.

On the other hand, the thanks received from the majority of the coloured people, for whom so much sacrifice had been made, was the rejection by them of the Editor, who stood as their candidate for re-election in the Eastern District, a few months later. Despite this, however, the fight for the rights of ALL Bahamians continued, and is continuing through the columns of this newspaper.

RE-WRITE HISTORY

And now – nearly 12 years later – some of the very men who lost nothing, but gained everything from that historic night in 1956, are attempting to rewrite history. From the floor of the House on which their emancipation was fought some of them are now trying to say that no victory was won.

As Mr Peter Christie (UBP-Andros) told Sir Etienne’s attackers in the House on December 14: “PLP members have tried to minimise the result because it was not of their doing. Whatever they may say, the people of this country know the effect of this resolution. It is a fact of history that even the PLP government cannot change. They are flogging a dead horse that was put to rest in 1956,” he said.

“If not for him (Sir Etienne), a lot of members on the other side wouldn’t even be in this House,” Mr Geoffrey Johnstone, Deputy Opposition Leader, reminded the PLP government.

OPENED DOOR

In the Senate, where the attack was continued, Senator the Hon C W F Bethell told members that the report of the Select Committee in 1956 had achieved what Sir Etienne had attempted to achieve. It had opened the way, he said, to the progress that we see today.

But what were the social conditions prior to 1956 and what were the conditions just a few days after the resolution was moved by Sir Etienne in the House?

Before Monday, January 23, 1956, coloured men and women in The Bahamas could not enter certain restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment - an exclusive area at the race track was even out of bounds! In fact, although coloured men could be, and were elected to the House of Assembly and appointed to the Legislative and Executive Councils, they could not go to the same places for recreation as the white man.

THE RESOLUTION

On January 23, 1956, Sir Etienne moved the following Resolution in the House of Assembly:

“Resolved, that this House is of the opinion that discrimination in hotels, theatres and other places in the Colony against persons on account of their race or colour is not in the public interest.

“Resolved, further, that this House is of the opinion that a Commission of Enquiry should be appointed under the Commissions of Enquiry Act to investigate all matters relating to such discrimination in the Colony with the power to make recommendations for eliminating this evil by legislation OR OTHERWISE.

“Resolved, further, that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to His Excellency the Governor.”

The Resolution as it stood was defeated. However, the amendment by Mr Frank H Christie that the Resolution – rather than being sent to a Commission of Inquiry – be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration, was passed.

On February 20, the Select Committee adopted the first half of the Resolution, deploring discrimination in public places. The second half recommending investigation by a Commission of Inquiry and a recommendation for legislation if necessary was dropped by the majority of the committee. Sir Etienne signed the majority report.

MINORITY REPORT

Mr Gerald Cash, while agreeing with the Resolution – “expressing the opinion of the House that discrimination in hotels, theatres and other public places in the Colony against persons on account of their race or colour, is not in the public interest” – put in a minority report stating that “legislation should be enacted to assure the public of their rights…”

Senator Simeon Bowe, after benefiting from the fruits of the Resolutions for nearly 12 years, is now of the opinion that the Resolution had not in fact passed.

When the Select Committee reported, Sen Bowe told Senators on December 14 this year, “we find that half of the resolution was gone. There was no provision to set up a Commission of Inquiry to make recommendations to remove this evil by legislation or otherwise”.

Sir Etienne, never one espoused to legislation in what he considered a moral matter if the “otherwise” would work, is now being criticised for not having hammered away for legislation.

But was legislation, or even a Commission of Inquiry, necessary by the time the committee reported on February 20, 1956?

WHAT HAPPENED

Let us move away from the Votes of the House of Assembly for the period November 17, 1955, to May 17, 1956 - it is on these votes that Mr Bowe seems to rely solely for his information, but we would like to remind him that when history is written the votes will not play as important a role as he would probably like them to play.

Let us look as the social reforms taking place in the country as a result of the Resolution.

On Monday, January 23, 1956, Sir Etienne moved the anti-discrimination Resolution. On Thursday, January 26, 1956 – three days later – the majority of Nassau’s exclusive hotels announced that they were open to everyone, regardless of race, the only standard being good behaviour and proper dress. By Saturday, January 28, the British Colonial Hotel, the last to make its announcement, said that there was no discrimination at their hotel.

One by one, each public place had capitulated. All Bahamians, regardless of race, provided they dressed and behaved properly, could enter any public establishment in the colony.

Newspapers throughout the world hailed Sir Etienne’s achievement. Wrote the Daily Gleaner, Jamaica: “Mr Etienne Dupuch, journalist and legislator of Nassau, New Providence may well have lit a candle which shall ne’er be quenched …”

For this singular achievement, The Tribune received the Mergenthaler Award by the Inter-American Press Association for campaigning and carrying through an important social reform without bloodshed.

WHY NECESSARY?

Why was a Commission of Inquiry necessary at that point to investigate something that no longer existed? If the hotels had remained with doors firmly closed then the fight would have continued for legislation and for an inquiry. But rare good sense was shown on that occasion; and a great social problem was overcome without bitterness.

Such a reform in the hands of some of the present leaders would surely have resulted in serious trouble. But the Editor, who, at that moment when people’s emotions were running high, could have destroyed the existing social order, counselled:

“Be calm.

“Be patient.

“Be vigilant.”

His own business was crumbling about his feet for fighting a situation that it would have been easier for him to have ignored. Yet he begged the people for whom he had sacrificed all his material wealth not to do anything to lose what they had gained. His editorials in the weeks ahead were to advise moderation, peace and public order.

He told the people on January 25: “At the outset I want to repeat an assurance I have given this public on many occasions in the past that I am a man of moderation. I do not seek power for power’s sake. I seek nothing for myself. No section of this public – indeed, no individual so long as he behaves in a reasonable manner – has anything to fear from me.”

REASONABLE MEN

He always maintained that if a mode of reasonable behaviour in human relations could be established as a custom, a community would be that much finer. It is for that reason that his Resolution did not demand legislation. It asked for social reform by legislation or “otherwise”. He got it “otherwise” and as far as he was concerned the victory was won. The goal was accomplished in a most reasonable manner … a manner that has made The Bahamas unique in the world for nearly 12 years. It would be a pity to lose that position now over a small incident in a barber shop that could be remedied easily by the pressure of public opinion.

As any lawyer knows, no matter how good the legislator, he cannot foresee every loophole. Undoubtedly there would have been loopholes in any anti-discrimination legislation, which could have been used by a clever lawyer to benefit his client. No man can legislate a virtue into the soul of another man. Love and charity towards one’s fellowman must come from the soul. Man must accept the equality of his fellowman because he believes it is morally right to do so, not because the law tells him he must do so. However, if a man is so morally decadent that he needs a written law, then a written law he must have.

Fortunately our community saw the moral justices of Sir Etienne’s proposal and made legislation unnecessary.

However, it is said that poverty we have always with us. So it is with discrimination. And no amount of legislation will remove discrimination from a bigot’s soul.
This is what the Editor believed. One only has to look around in the community today to see that he has achieved what he set out to do. And no amount of legislation by the PLP can change the facts of history.

INACCURATE

VERSION

In a so-called effort to set the record straight, Mr Wallace Whitfield, who was obviously not present in the House on January 24, 1956, presumed to tell the House on December 13 this year what took place on that night nearly 12 years ago.

When the Speaker of the House appointed Mr Frank Christie to head the anti-discrimination committee, instead of Sir Etienne as should have been the custom, Sir Etienne protested. He protested vigorously.

But, embellishes Mr Whitfield in his version of the event, Sir Etienne “cussed and raised Hades. I have to use that word, because I understand the words he used that evening were unparliamentary … one might say obscene.”

Obviously Mr Whitfield’s informant was not even present that night, because no such thing ever took place.

THE TRUTH

It is true that tempers were lost. It is true that Sir Etienne protested the Speaker’s action.

It is true that when Sir Etienne refused to sit down until his protest was heard, the Speaker threatened to call the constable on duty to arrest him. It is true that Sir Etienne replied: “You may call the whole Police Force, you may call the whole British Army … I will go to gaol tonight, but I refuse to sit down, and I am ready to resign and go back to the people.”

It is true that the Speaker did not carry out his threat. It is true that the gallery was angry and upset. It is also true that the House broke up in confusion. But at no time was unparliamentary or obscene language used by anyone on the floor of the House. I was there. Obviously, Mr Whitfield was not. Today some of our leaders seem to think that it is clever to use unparliamentary language. It is only the immature who think that such behaviour is smart.

In the House of Assembly in those days there was still some semblance of dignity, and no matter how angry a man became, obscenities were not the order of the day.

Unfortunately, dignity seems to be a thing of the past.

Today many of our leaders, who, at that time took all, gave nothing, should hang their heads in shame.

DID NOT KNOW

In a letter to Sir Etienne, a gentleman who holds a high executive position in their government today, wrote:

“Some years ago, you chose to take a public stand against people in high places. At that time you jeopardised your own newspaper and one would have thought that the intelligent public would have supported you …

“I wish to commend you on The Tribune story that you are writing at this time. I am impressed with your courage. I had no idea that you had suffered so much over the years.”

This letter was written on November 18, 1964.

People in the community today, who are honest with themselves, know – however much they might disagree with or dislike the Editor of this newspaper – that he has courageously fought, and as a result suffered, for many reforms that he has won for the Bahamian people, both black and white.

Despite the destructive efforts of the PLP, history cannot, and will not be so easily erased.

And as this newspaper fought for the rights of the coloured man in 1956, it is now fighting against the racial hatred nurtured against the white man by some of the very men who were made first class citizens on that historic night. Men who should know that discrimination in any form is evil.