Yellow Face

"You have a theory?" said Watson.

"Yes, a provisional one. But I shall be surprised if it does not turn out to be correct. This woman's first husband is in that cottage," replied Sherlock Holmes, confident that he had solved the mystery of who was occupying a cottage near the home of one Grant Munro. His wife's unusual behavior prompted him to seek the help of Holmes, and Holmes listens to the man's story.

Grant Munro's wife, Effie, had moved back to England from the States after losing her first husband and child to yellow fever. Up to this time, they have had what he describes as a marriage of bliss. Holmes deduction is that the first husband is not dead, but alive, and is the occupant that Effie Munro has been having secret liasions with.

What Effie didn't tell Munro is that her first husband was a black man, and she was the mother of a bi-racial child who was very much alive. Afraid to allow this child to travel while fighting disease, she leaves her behind in the care of a nanny, only to pine so for her that she sends for the both of them, but instructs the nanny to keep the child hidden and obscure her face so that no one would learn of her paternity until she was ready to confront Grant with the truth.

Finally, when no longer able to oblige his wife's wishes to wait for her to tell him the truth, Grant charges the cottage and finds a Scottish woman and a small child whose arms and face are covered. When Watson pulls back the covering, a small Black child is revealed.

It is now that Effie tells Grant that her first husband was a Black man, and the little girl is hers.

At this time, and to everyone's surprise, Grant "lifted the little child, kissed her, and then, still carrying her, he held his other hand out to his wife and turned towards the door."

The sentiment Doyle evokes at this point from the reader is one of admiration for Mr. Grant, for putting aside his wife's dishonesty and what would surely be strong reactions from people of that time, to focus his affection on Effie's daughter. In 1894, when the story was published, there were no anti-miscegenation laws in the United Kingdom, yet interracial marriages and mixed race children were looked down upon, frowned on.

73 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that under the Constitution, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Unfortunately, as in 1894, not only are these unions frowned on today, there are some who, despite its unconstitutionality, would attempt to prevent them from occurring.

42 years after the Supreme Court ruling, Keith Bardwell, a Justice of the Peace in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, resigned after refusing to marry an interracial couple. In an attempt to try to humanize his actions, he expressed his concern for the children of these interracial unions. He was trying to spare the suffering that he believed would become these children because, in his experience, interracial marriages "don't last".

I seriously doubt that Mr. Bardwell was a fan of Arthur Conan Doyle or Sherlock Holmes. I also seriously doubt that Mr. Doyle was a proponent of interracial marriages. He was, however, years ahead of his time in conveying that too much emphasis is placed on the color of a person's skin.

When the case involving Mr. Munro was solved, Mr. Holmes admitted that he had erred in his theory, and says to Mr. Watson, "If it should ever strike you that I am getting a little overconfident in my powers, or giving less pains to a case than it deserves, kindly whisper 'Norbury' (the name of the place the Munro's resided) in my ear, and I shall be infinitely obliged to you."

It appears that Mr. Bardwell was overconfident in believing his personal feelings (however noble he wants us to believe they were) trumped those of the constitution for which he swore to uphold. He also gave less pains to a case than it deserves by deducing quickly, (as Holmes did in the Munro case when he confidently believed Mrs. Munro was hiding a husband, and not a child), that interracial marriages could only cause suffering to any child that union would produce. Maybe someone should have whispered "Loving v. Virginia" to this former Justice of the Peace.