The Manley-Garvey face-off

Ken Jones, Contributor

Mayor Desmond McKenzie's mission to mow down illegally erected structures revives memory of the fuss nearly 80 years ago over what was then called the historic gas station at the corner of Old Hope and Oxford roads.

The controversy that swirled around this building persisted for some six years before a settlement was reached. At one point, two of our now national heroes came close to fisticuffs after a heated debate in the meeting room of the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation.

The complex, convoluted controversy began sometime in 1932 when George Penso, a businessman and landed proprietor, decided to build a gas station in what was then considered a quiet residential area. It would be a match and competitor to another gas station at the intersection of Half-Way Tree and Oxford roads; and also a convenience for ladies and gentlemen who were breaking style by driving their own cars instead of using chauffeurs.

Mr Penso had made an application to the KSAC building authorities, received permission and proceeded with construction. However, as the building neared completion, an influential resident across the road, Dr Godfrey, raised a protest on grounds that a nuisance was being created - there would be the noise of car engines, bright lights late at night, and such activity as would tend to decrease the value of premises in the area.

What followed caused an explosion of arguments. Some members of the council that had approved the building and supervised its construction persuaded the mayor that the meeting that granted approval was not properly constituted and that Mr Penso should reapply for permission.

Legal battlelines were drawn. Mr Penso retained Mr Leslie Ashenheim to argue that he had put up his building in good faith and should not reapply. The mayor engaged Manton & Hart, which firm retained Mr Norman Manley to help sort out the tangled situation. Meanwhile, public discussion raged, and Marcus Garvey, then a KSAC councillor, held a public meeting on the matter at Old Wolmer's Yard, next door the parish church.

Large audience

The gallery was packed tight on the day of the meeting called to consider the burning question. At once, it was stated by Mayor George Seymour that Garvey was not competent to sit or vote on the matter, as learned counsel had advised that he was disqualified. Garvey made a long statement in which he denied alleged conflict of interest because Mr Penso had once stood surety for him. The mayor then said:

"It has been brought to my attention, and I am advised Councillor Garvey, that you are not competent to sit and vote on this occasion, not on account of any matter that you have explained, but on another matter entirely. And that matter is in connection with the meeting at Old Wolmer's and at which you invited a mandate from the people to say whether you were to vote for the keeping of the gas station at the corner of Oxford and Old Hope roads. I am advised by counsel that that disqualifies you as showing bias in the matter ... ."

Garvey responded: "Well, I know the legal mind and I know there are always subterfuges ... . I am going to bow to your ruling only, but I am going to differ from your counsel who does not seem to know that an elected representative always possesses the right to consult the people who elected him on any matter; and I am sorry for the legal intelligence, the political intelligence of counsel, if he does not know that that could not disqualify one dealing with a public matter representing the people. But I bow to your ruling."

An annoyed Norman Manley rose to his feet, declaring, "Mr Chairman, I attended here at your request because of the difficulties the Corporation has been in, but I am not going to remain here to listen to Councillor Garvey making his offensive remarks. He knows nothing about law."

Garvey: I know as much as you about this matter.

Manley: I have not been invited here to listen to any impertinence from Mr Garvey

Garvey: Neither from you, too.

Manley: I have given my opinion and he has not the decency and intelligence ... .

Garvey: You are most irresponsible.

Manley: And you are a positive disgrace.

Garvey: Look here, Manley, I don't care about you. You fellows seem to assume some right that is not justifiable.

When the chairman intervened, Garvey continued heatedly:

... How dare him call me impertinent, Sir, when I have only exercised my right to say what I understand about the matter. You must be one of the socially drunk people who think that.

Manley: Look here, you are a loud-voiced person and I am not going to answer you in any way. If you insist on being rude and impertinent ... .

Garvey: You are not physically well enough to be loud-voiced.

Manley, visibly upset: Do you really think so? Then step outside.

Garvey: I would be sorry for what would happen to you.

Manley indicated a readiness to step outside but Garvey remained in his seat. The bitter argument continued and Mr Ashenheim walked out of the meeting after saying that his client would not be reapplying and that the Corporation was running the risk of expensive litigation.

Years-long controversy

At the end of the meeting, the Corporation voted "against the application" although there was no application other than the original, which had been approved. After that, advice was sought from the attorney general and the matter reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the meeting that had approved the erection of the building was, in fact, not properly constituted. However, there was no ruling as to whether or not the Corporation should approve, as the decision was entirely its business.

The controversy dragged on and on. At a subsequent meeting, Mr Garvey argued that the meeting at which he was not allowed to vote was, in fact, ultra vires because it had not been called at the request of any councillor, but just by the mayor. Furthermore, it had taken place sooner than the required six months after the previous meeting. He was also against the Corporation wasting money on litigation instead of fixing roads and bridges for the people. He was overruled.

The matter remained undecided for many months, leading into years. Meanwhile, the times were changing; and so were values and attitudes. Mr Penso sold the gas station to Trinidad Leaseholds, a British company that had built the oil refinery in Trinidad and would soon operate as Regent and later Texaco. Also, Dr Godfrey, the leading protester against the gas station, had applied for and got permission to erect a 'Chinese shop' on land he owned across the street. Still, the city fathers continued to argue.

In 1937, fully four years after the controversy began, Councillor Earnest Rae wanted the building torn down forthwith and an absorption pit that had been dug removed. None of this was done, as the Corporation continued to be wary of getting into deeper legal waters. Eventually, in 1939, the matter came to a head when the corpo-ration ruled that Oxford Road was the northern boundary of the commercial district. After that, the station was legally opened for business.

As for that Manley-Garvey altercation in which Marcus declined Norman's invitation to "step outside", H.G. DeLisser wrote, with tongue in cheek: "Possibly, Mr Garvey was well aware that although ... Mr Manley, in his opinion, does not look 'physically well enough to be loud-voiced'; although Mr Manley is slim and even delicately looking - Mr Garvey may have been aware ... that Mr Manley is by way of being a lightweight pugilist ... really an athlete in good condition; he understands boxing and wrestling and would be an ugly customer to tackle."

On the other hand, there is no telling what might have happened had vexed members of the pro-Garvey gallery accompanied him and become part of the contest.

Ken Jones is a communication specialist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and kensjones2002@yahoo.com.