I beg to move the motion in my name as follows:—
|
Beartuitear de bhrí gur sighníodh i Washington an 23adh lá dEanair, 1924, thar ceann Uachtarán Stát Aontuithe Mheirice agus thar ceann a Shoillse ach go ndéanfí iad do dhaingniú Airtiogail Co-Aontuithe do Chonnra i dtaobh regleáil na Trádála Oil lasmuich de mhuir dhuchais Stát Aontuithe Mheirice (Airtiogail go bhfuil a mbrí le feiscint so Sceideal a ghabhann leis seo) agus |
Be it resolved, that whereas Articles of Agreement for a Treaty respecting the regulation of the Liquor Traffic outside the territorial waters of the United States of America (whereof the tenor appears by the Schedule hereto) were signed at Washington on the 23rd day of January, 1924, on behalf of the President of the United States of America and His Majesty subject to ratification, and |
|
De bhrí go mbaineann forálacha an Chonnartha san le leasanna Shaorstáit Eireann agus go bhfuil sé oiriúnach go ndéanfí an céanna do dhaingniú ar son Shaorstáit Eireann; |
Whereas the provisions of the said Treaty affect the interests of Saorstát Eireann and it is expedient that the same should be ratified in respect of Saorstát Eireann, |
|
Go gceaduionn Dáil Eireann an Connra san do dhaingniú agus go molann sí don Ard-Chomhairle san do chur in úil don Choróinn. |
Dáil Eireann approves of the ratification of the said Treaty and recommends that the Executive Council do so advise the Crown. |
In doing so, perhaps I had better give some explanations of the history and meaning of this Treaty. It will be remembered that somewhere about 1919 the Constitution of the United States was amended, in what was known as the 18th Article, to prohibit the manufacture of alcoholic liquor in the United States and the transportation through import into, or export from the United States, of alcoholic liquor. That amendment of the Constitution was made law by an Act known as the Volsted Act. From that time on there was a great deal of international difficulty. On the one hand there was a large remunerative, highly immoral business carried on of importing liquor into the United States. The United States authorities found it necessary to wage a sort of war on that traffic. On the one hand they found it highly important that they should be able to extend their powers of search and seizure outside what is known as the three-mile limit. On the other hand, when these cases came into court, the United States Courts declared that under the Volsted Act it was illegal for any ship in United States territorial waters to have alcoholic liquor on board. By way of finding a modus vivendi between various nations, this Treaty comes along. Under this Treaty the United States authorities have power to search vessels, and if necessary, seize their contents within an area which can extend beyond the three-mile limit. That is an area represented by one hour's journey by the ship that would bring the liquor to the land. That is done because it was the habit of the liquor traffickers, commonly known as “boot-leggers,” to have a ship to take the liquor from another country and to stop outside the area of the United States territorial waters. Boats would then go from the shore, generally fast motor boats, take the liquor from the ship and transport it to the land. Under the old system a ship, by staying outside the territorial waters, claimed to be exempt from any action by the United States authorities. This Treaty will allow the authorities to search and make seizures within an area represented by one hour's travelling. At the same time, foreign vessels will be allowed to have liquor on board, which is part of ships stores, or stores which they may be transporting, not to the United States, but to some other country, merely making a United States port a port of call. They will be allowed to have such liquor on board under seal. The Treaty became necessary as that could not be done by a non-Treaty agreement. It was felt, in view of the finding of the United States courts, that the matter might again come into court, where it might be ruled that, as the law stood, no ship had a right to have liquor on board in United States territorial waters. The Treaty, presumably, when ratified by the United States Legislature, will have the effect of having a more binding, more powerful and more judicial effect than the Volsted Act. This Treaty has been signed in Washington.
I notice that a Deputy proposes to move an amendment recommending that the Dáil "withholds approval of the ratification of the said Treaty pending consideration of the full text of same." When I saw that first I did not quite understand what the point of it was, but yesterday in the Seanad, when moving this Resolution, I was told that a story was being spread abroad that we were actually attempting to conceal part of the Treaty. I may as well inform the Dáil that the whole Treaty is on the Orders of the Day and that the Dáil is committed to nothing it has not got before it. The whole Treaty is there as it is submitted to us, and as we agreed to its signature. In view of the misrepresentation which I am told has taken place, I will read what is known as the Preamble. It says:—
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India;
And the President of the United States of America;
Being desirous of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force in the United States on the subject of alcoholic beverages;
Have decided to conclude a convention for that purpose;
And have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries;
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India;
The Right Honourable Sir Auckland Campbell Geddes, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States of America;
The President of the United States of America;
Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States.
I understood from my informant that exception was taken to the title attributed to the Crown, "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." I may as well explain that that is the title still held by the Crown. In order to change it, it would be necessary to have an Act of Parliament in the British Parliament. I have called the attention of the British authorities to the fact that this title is no longer descriptive of fact. One might say that it is like the title borne by His Brittanic Majesty up to about the time of the Union of the Irish and English Parliament, namely, "King of France." It was a description without relation to fact. I have not pressed nor urged the British Government to take immediate steps for rectification pending the settlement of the boundary question here. I recommend that the Dáil approve of this Resolution. I may say that the Executive Council were consulted with regard to what action was to be taken as to whether or not this Treaty should be agreed to. Actually we recommend that it should be agreed to because we were necessarily sympathetic to the Government of the United States. During the last two years we were very seriously affected by the illegal traffic of bringing arms into this country for the purpose of waging war upon the people. During that time, if we had rather more shipping power than we possessed it would have been a very great convenience to us if we had wider powers of search and seizure. As a Government, we recognise that every Government must take every means in its power, and that no one outside has a right to try to interfere with that Government in enforcing the laws of that country. The law of America is prohibition, and the American Government is bound to use all the means in its power to enforce that law. We feel that it is our duty to meet them in every possible way, and in no way to attempt to put any hindrance or difficulty in their way in enforcing the laws in their own country.
