My remarks were addressed not merely to the members of the present judiciary, but of the judiciary since 1922 as an institution, and not to any particular individual. I tied up my remarks with the remark of the Minister, that he did not wish to say anything about a particular judge. I do not repeat that it must be a matter of congratulation to the people that we can confidence that the rule of law will be enforced by the judges, and that it will be respected by the Government, as it was respected in this case.
The party stood, has always stood, and still stands for two things, above all things, in matters of political principle. They stand, in the first place, for the maintenance of ordered conditions in this country and for the reign of the rule of law; they stand, in the second place, for the guranteeing to citizens of the country of their constitutional rights and, in particular, of the right of the liberty of the citizen. When we were asked to give the Government powers of this kind, which are a grave infringement of the constitutional rights and liberties of the citizen, we demand that the Government shall make a case, a strong case, and an unanswerable case, for the granting of these powers. If such a case be made, and if we are satisfied that it is the Government's intention to use these powers properly and prudently, from this Party they will get these powers whatever our opinions may be as to their inefficency, their past conduct or their past history. They will get them in the interests, not merely of the maintenance of the rule of law, but in the interests of the guarantee of the liberty of the citizen, because some of the conduct of which the Minister for Justice complained here to-day is a graver infringement of the liberty of the citizen than even the powers which might be granted under this Bill.
We are asked in this Bill to give the Government power to intern Irish citizens. The Minister for Justice rather suggested that the Government found themselves in the present difficulties by reason of the fact that certain members of the Opposition had persuaded the then Minister for Justice to limit the scope of the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 by excluding from the operations of the section dealing with internment natural-born Irish citizens. Deputy Mcgilligan, Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy O'sullivan and myself all argued against the inclusion in the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 of the power to intern natural-born Irish citizens. I argued against it on the Second Reading and Committe Stage of the Bill, and I argue against it here to-day as a matter of principle. It is bad in principle, in my opinion, and we take our stand here on the reasoned amendment we put forward and say that not merely is it bad in principle, but that the wrong method has been adopted. We make no apology for the fact that we moved, and successfully persuaded the then Minister for Justice, to limit the scope of the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, so as to provide that the Government would not have the of interning natural-born Irish citizens.
In my view, and it is still my view, a Bill which was passed to deal not with the state of war existing in this country, but with a public emergency created by a war situation outside this country, is not the place where a domestic problem should be dealt with and an effort made to solve it, because the problem which we are dealing with and which the Minister asks us to solve by the Bill we are discussing, is, purely and simply, a domestic problem, a problem that existed long before war was declared between Germany, France and Great Britain, and a problem that still exists in precisely the same form as it existed months before the state of emergency was created which the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, was passed to deal with. Therefore, the view we took when that Bill was passing through Dáil was that it was not the place in which powers should be sought to intern Irish-born citizens.
We still take that view, and we have no apology to offer for it; but whether we are right or wrong, the then Minister for Justice took the same view, because, in the passage quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, at coloumns 141 and 142 of the Official Debates of 2nd September, 1939, we asked was it intended under paragraph (1) of the particular section to include natural born citizens, or, rather, was paragraph (1) confined to persons who were not natural born citizens, and the Minister for Justice said that that was his interpretation of the section. In order to make his interpretation of the section absolutely clear, he there and then moved the amendment which now appears as part of the substantive law in the Emergency Powers Act of 1939. But whether that was the Minister's view or not, I am not making any apologies for taking that view. I would do the same again. I say that this Bill is not the place in which to provide powers for the Government to intern natural-born Irish citizens, because the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 was passed to deal with a war situation, or an emergency created by an outside war situation. The problem we have to deal with is, purely and simply, a domestic problem and let us deal with it in a domestic way, and not under cover of an Act passed, and powers obtained, to deal with a situation caused by external forces at war with each other.
That is one of the reasons—from the point of view of sheer principle—for my objection to the particular method being adopted by the Government, but there is possiblly even a greater objection, and it is the objection embodied in the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government was faced before Christmas with the decision of a judge interpreting Part VI, if not the entire of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, and it is to deal with the situation created by that decision that this Bill and the Bill, the First Reading of which was moved to-day, have been introduced. Have the Government considered whether or not this proposal is contrary to the Consitution? Have they considered the grave effects that will follow if a decision is given that this particular Bill is contrary to the Constitution? It is not for me in this House to give what is, or is not, my legal opinion on the effect of this Bill from the point of view of the Consitution, but I am entitled to say, and I confine my observations to this, that, taking the Bill we are now discussing and considering it in relation to the judgement of the learned judge who gave a decision in the habeas corpus application before Christmas, there is not merely a reasonable possibility, but a fairly certain proability, that this Bill will be declared to be contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Consitution, and the Government will then be faced with the fact that they have again failed in their efforts to deal with the present situation, and that they have brought in, or have tried to get the Dáil to forge a weapon which will break in their hands again as Part VI of the Offences Against the State Act broke in their hands.
That is not a situation the country ought to be confronted with. It is a situation which may bring into derision the institutions of this State and the Government of this State, and render it immpossible not merely for this Government but for any Government to deal with the threat and the menance with which the present Government is faced by the people who are to be interned under this Bill. I ask the House to consider very carefully whether they ought to take the risk of passing this Bill and next week having a court decision that this is unconstitutional, with the inevitable result that anybody who is interned under the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes law, is again realeased and we have for the second or third time the spectacle of the gaol gates being opened during the régime of this Government.
I do not want to anticipate—in fact I had very great doubt as to whether or not it was my duty to draw attention to this aspect of the case at all, but I ultimately felt it was—the arguments on which that may be based, but it is essential for me to explain to the Dáil at least in outline the kind of case on which that may be built up. The Emergency Powers Act, 1939, was passed for the express purpose of dealing with an emergency. In order that that Act should be passed it was essential that the Constitution should be amended; at least it was a wise course to have taken to amend the Constitution. Article 28 of the Constitution, even as amended now, merely deals with a situation which arises from war, an emergency created by an outside war, or armed revolution. Paragraph 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution prevents the Constitution being invoked to invalidate a law which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion. Under a recent Constitution amendment that would include the present emergency. Now, we have there: war, an emergency created by an outside war, or armed rebellion. The situation we are facing here, in the argument which I conceive would be advanced, is neither war in this country nor is it an emergency created by the war in France, Great Britain and Germany, nor it is rebellion. Therefore, Article 28, paragraph (3), cannot be put forward as a sheild against the Bill that we are now considering, if it is passed into an Act, being declared unconstitutional along the lines of the judgement of the learned judge before Christmas.
I think I have said sufficient to show at least that i have justified the statement I made at the beginning of my remarks that not merely is there a reasonable possibility but there is almost a certain probability that the Act which we are passing now will be declared to be unconstitutional. I say again, and I emphasise it with all sincerity and earnestness, that we cannot afford to have the Government make another mess such as they have made in the last four or five years in the administration of law and justice. The country cannot afford to have the Government again made a laughing stock, because it will not merely reflect upon the existing Government but will reflect upon the existing institutions of the State, render and Government impossible in future, and give a fillip to those enemies of the State whom we are all trying to curb and whose acti vities we all wish to see at at an end. Therefore, we put down this amendment to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that they are pursuing the wrong method and adopting the wrong course. We ask them to pause and consider that the introduction of a few words, even the six words that they have here, the six little words in this Bill, those little words put into paragraph 3, Article 28 of the Constitution, will guarantee and secure that the instrument which the Government wants to forge for the protection of the State against the people referred to by the Minister for Justice will be an effective instrument, a powerful instrument and a strong instrument.
We say, if you want those powers you must make a case for them, and adopt the proper method of getting those powers. I very gravely doubt whether the country will be convinced, by the statement made by the Minister for Justice here to-day, of the necessity for those powers. We are convinced of it, but we do not want to be manoeuvred into the position that we are the people who want to deprive the citizens of this State of their constitutional rights and liberties. We are in favour of giving those powers, because we think that the people who are exercising the illegal methods referred to by the Minister for Justice are the real menace, or one of the real menances, to the liberty of the citizens of this country, but we do not want to adopt the wrong method. I do say that here we are proposing to pass this Bill into an Act, and there is at least a grave danger that it will be declared to be unconstitutional.
I do suggest to the House, therefore, that this reasonal amendment which is put down by us is worthy of support. I assume that the Government simply read our motion and said: "This is a Fine Goel motion; therefore we will oppose it", and never gave it proper or adequate consideration. I do not care whether the Government regard my observations as of any weigth or not. I do think that I have made a case here for very grave consideration by the Government before they turn down this amendment which we have put forward. There is a simple method of resolving this difficulty. Six little words were dealt with here to-day. Six little words will do it, copied from another Article of the Constitution here, which appear in our amendment—the existence of a domestic emergency. That will do it. That will safeguard the Government in the conduct of their operations under this Bill.
I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt, in reference to this Bill that we are now passing, the provisions of the Constitution enabling the President to refer this Bill to the Supreme Court for decision on its constitutionality or not. I take it there will not be time to do that, if we are to agree with the statement of the Minister for Justice that the powers in this Bill, or similar powers, are urgently required. I take it, therefore, that it is not intended to refer this Bill to the Supreme Court under the provisions of Article 26. We have introduced here to-day a Bill which really proposes to re-enact Part VI of the Offences Against the State Act. If we are to accept what is the common belief at the moment, that it is the intention of the Government to refer that Bill, if and when it is passed by this House, through the medium of the constitutional provisions of Article 26 for decision to the Supreme Court, what is the position going to be if Part VI is declared to be unconstitutional? What guarantee is there that the rest of the Offences Against the State Act of 1939 will not be declared to be unconstitutional by some judicial personage?
What will the position then be? This Bill we are now passing will be unconstitutional. The one we may or may not pass to-morrow re-enacting Part VI of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, may or may not be unconstitutional, but at all events the net result will be that in three or four weeks this Government will find itself not merely without any powers but in a position never again to be capable of getting or exercising the powers which they say they require to deal with the situation with which they are at present confronted. I do not know how they can get a decision of the Supreme Court on this Bill. Presumably they can do it under the machinery of Article 26. I do not want to comment on the machinery of Article 26. I do not know how it could be argued when there is no legitimus contradictor, when there is no one to go before the Supreme Court and argue the contrary. I do not know what weight or authority such a decision would have. Under the machinery provided by Article 26 it is difficult to see how any effective decision can be obtained. Whether that can or cannot be, it appears to me that the plan of the Government to deal with the present situation is to bring this six words Bill, this Bill with its six little words, and pass it into law straight away, and pass the next Bill into law and immediately get the President to refer it to the Supreme Court.
What is going to happen, in the meantime, to the people who are looking to be interned, as the Minister for Justice would say, under this Bill? What is going to happen if and when a habeas corpus application is brought and again a judge declares that the Bill we are now passing is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and is not safeguarded by the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 28? What is going to happen then? There is no appeal to the Supreme Court. That decision is final and conclusive, and where are the powers then? What is the use of going on with this futile farce of referring the Bill we are next going to deal with to the Supreme Court?
I repeat that it is incumbent upon this House not to adopt the particular method or plan that has been put forward by the Government. It is typical of their inefficiency, typical of the fact that they cannot walk straight, that they must walk in a crooked way. If they want to walk from point A to point B, instead of walking in a straight line, they walk in a curve.
The Government have here an opportunity of walking in a straight line, of placing themselves in an impregnable position, ready to meet any emergency. Instead of doing that, they must go through the futile farce of bringing in this Bill with the six little words in it to enable them to intern Irish-born citizens under the cover of an Act passed to deal with an emergency created by a state of war existing outside this country, and they must pass a Bill repealing Part VI of the Offences Against the State Act, solemnly re-enacting it with some small amendments and then referring it to the Supreme Court, where there is no legitimus contradictor. This House ought not to take part in that futile farce; they ought not to expose the country to the spectacle of the Government and the machinery of justice being a laughing stock, as it has been. I submit that this reasoned and very reasonable amendment that we have put down should get the unanimous support of Deputies.