asked the Minister for Defence whether he is now in a position to give the result of the enquiry, which he promised more than two months ago, into the allegation of collusion between the Athy Farmers' Union and the Military in that district, in connection with the arrest and detention of Mr. C.J. Supple, Secretary of the Athy Branch Irish Transport and General Workers Union; further, to ask whether the attention of the Minister has been drawn to what purports to be a letter intercepted in transit between the Farmers' Union Secretary, Athy, and the Minister for Agriculture, and published in a paper called "Eire" on April 21st, which would seem to implicate the Army Authorities in the dispute.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. [ORAL ANSWERS.] - ATHY FARMERS' UNION AND MILITARY.
This question can best be answered by my giving the following extracts from a statement by the Officer who permitted—irregularly—visits to Mr. Supple, who was under detention at the time. The extracts are:—
"On the evening of the 16th February last I was informed that a number of men were at the Barrack gate wishing to see Mr. Supple. I went down, and the first person I met was Mr. Timmins, Athy, Secretary of the Athy Branch Farmers Union, who told me that they wanted to settle the strike. I next saw four labour officials, who told me the same thing. I asked if there was a reasonable hope of a satisfactory settlement of the dispute, and got an affirmative answer.
"I was the only responsible person of the District Staff present. Had I refused the Conference the Military would have been charged by both sides to the dispute with having prevented the settlement, and prolonging the dispute. I permitted the Conference
"This case, I submit, was not strictly a visit to a prisoner so much as affording facilities for the settlement of a serious Labour Dispute. To say that I interfered in a Trade Dispute is a misconstruction of the facts.
"The labour officials, one of whom was Mr. Duffy, had a consultation of about four or five minutes with Supple before the farmers' representative (Mr. Timmins) came into the room. This was allowed in order that Supple might be given an unrestrained account of how matters stood—from the labour view point—as to the prospects of a settlement. The whole question at issue was then freely debated, and substantial, but not actual agreement was reached.
"At that point I was asked by a labour official (Mr. Duffy) the direct question ‘If the strike is settled can you give a guarantee that Mr. Supple is released?' To that question I answered ‘that I could not say,' and added ‘Speaking without prejudice to any action which the Army Authorities might deem it necessary to take, I am of opinion that it's possible Mr. Supple might be released. I respectfully submit that that was an honest answer, and that any other answer might have prejudiced the entire prospects of a settlement.
"When I gave that answer the farmers' representative said to me that Mr. Hogan (Minister for Agriculture) had told them (the Farmers) that if a satisfactory settlement was reached he would have the charges withdrawn and Supple released. To that I replied that the question of release did not lie with the Minister for Agriculture but with the Army Authorities, who were charged with responsibility for law and order in the district. To that I added: ‘Again speaking without prejudice, I am of opinion that before that question could be considered a signed and binding agreement between the parties for the specific period would have to be produced." And, although Supple had already applied in writing for parole, it was really on that statement that the question of parole arose. Both the farmers' representative and the labour officials agreed that it was a reasonable demand. They felt, however, that they could not at that Conference produce such a specific agreement. They felt that a larger conference of duly appointed delegates should meet to produce such an agreement, and they were unanimous that the attendance of Mr. Supple at that conference was a sine qua non. I then said that I could not grant a parole, but in view of the substantial progress which had been made towards a satisfactory agreement, I would recommend the granting of the parole. The conference was, thereupon terminated.”
My attention has not been drawn to the paper referred to in the second part of the question, but I have been informed that a letter did appear to the effect that a military officer stated to a member of the Farmers' Union on the 16th february that if Mr. Supple was not released "he would have him tried, not press the case, and have him released." I do not see anything in that statement to warrant the Deputy's suggestion that the Army Authorities were implicated in the labour dispute.