Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 1924

Vol. 9 No. 9

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT RE STATEMENT BY GENERAL O'DUFFY.

General MULCAHY

I desire to raise the matter that at a meeting apparently a few days ago at which the President, some of the Army Chiefs, and some of the Chiefs of the Gárda Síochána were present, the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, referring to the army matters of March last or subsequent to March last, made the statement that we were now in the happy and proud position of being able to say that no officer and no soldier of the Army who had stood loyally to the State, was let down. It has been represented to me that the terms of my motion this evening are too confined to enable some Deputies to say some things they would like to say on some of the statements made in Athlone. I regret that any Deputy who wanted to put down a wider motion did not do so, because I would be very glad to be relieved of the responsibility of drawing attention to it. I hoped to draw attention to what is the particular point I had in mind. That statement was made publicly and it was thought of sufficient importance to bring it out in leaded type in at least one daily paper.

Every Deputy in this House will remember that as recently as Thursday last, nine Deputies left this Dáil and resigned their positions as Deputies, because, in their opinion, certain Army officers had been let down. I personally have a very keen recollection that in March last three general officers who were responsible for making the Army, responsible for making it in pre-Truce days, were dismissed from their posts. I have left many things unsaid on that particular matter, but I am sure I have made it clear that in my opinion these three officers were let down, as the phrase goes. It is a fact also that as a result of the happenings of March, many other officers have left the Army, left it in circumstances in which they were put into such positions, or were to be put into such positions, that they considered they were let down. I do not think it could be said that any of these three classes were without men who had contributed to the setting up of this State, and yet we find ourselves in the position that the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána could state by implication that the whole three classes were people who were disloyal to the State. I think we are entitled to know what is meant by the statement, and I think also that every Deputy will be anxious to know from what particular official quarter we are in danger of having from time to time officials butting in, into what are political matters, delicate or otherwise. Every Deputy is entitled to know if in the Army or the Police Force or in any other department of the State, the chiefs may come together from time to time in synod, issue pastorals, serve out obstats and nihil obstats with regard to the political thoughts or deeds of other people. Very many sacrifices, sacrifices over the whole gamut along which sacrifices, big or small, may be made, have been made in the cause of differentiating out here the different parts of our Government machinery, the different parts of the machinery of State, and differentiating for each of them their position, their powers, their responsibilities—the Executive Council, the Dáil, the Army, the Civil Service.

Many sacrifices are being made to-day in that cause and many sacrifices will be made to-morrow and I think it is of the utmost importance that that differentiation should not be obscured in any way either by the deeds of any persons or by any laxity on our part to draw attention to things to which attention should be drawn. It is to a large extent because of that but also because I think the persons who in any small way have served the State in circumstances of which the whole truth can never be known, should not be belied in the way in which this statement does belie very many persons, that I ask what is the meaning of this statement, and why is it made, and to how much more of this stuff are persons, from whom sacrifices are being expected to-day, expected to listen with their mouths shut?

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Before the President replies I want to say a word. I do not want to re-discuss the events of the last six months, but motions of this sort compel me to re-discuss them, at least to some extent. Deputy Mulcahy mentioned that there were three classes who were apparently referred to—

General MULCAHY

Certainly not.

Mr. HOGAN

I will put it in another way. Deputy Mulcahy pointed out that the three or four officers who were dismissed last March represented one class; that the Deputies who left the House some time ago represented another class; and the officers for whom they spoke represented a third class, and that there was another class of officers who had left the army for reasons connected with the events over which these classes left the army. I think he wanted to know whether this reference to disloyalty to the State referred to any of these classes of officers. I think that that is a fair statement of the position. Now I am going to repeat—because I think that point of view should be kept in front, as well as any other points of view which any other Deputy may think it necessary to put forward—that the people who reorganised the I.R.B. in the army were striking a blow at the foundations of the State; that the people who reorganised the I.R.A. in the army were striking a blow at the foundations of the State, and that so far as the other class of officers, who are now resigned and at home at their work, are concerned, if they identify themselves with either of these two classes, they must take the same blame, and they must come into the same category.

There is just one further point, and it is this. We hear too much about the services that certain well-known officers and certain well-known people have given in the past. We hear far too much about that, and it is not fair to the very large number of officers who are doing their work quietly in their shops, in business, at work, at home, who gave real service to the State without expecting anything in return, and who are quite content now to go home to do their business, having done their work for the State at the time of crisis. We hear far too much about records, and we hear far too much about records from people whose records are about the same as mine, from the point of view of soldiering. There are about 100 people in this country with any records as soldiers, and about 70 per cent. of those people have left the Army, left the pre-Truce Army and the post-Truce National Army, when they had their work done. They are at home now doing their business, supporting the State in another capacity, and these are the people to whom the real thanks of the State and of the people should go.

Major COOPER

I want to make an appeal to the Dáil not to revive old quarrels. I was, somewhat against my will, put into a position of investigating these troubles that arose in the past. Is there anything in the world to be gained by reviving them now, as some of the remarks of the Minister for Agriculture are tending to revive them? I agree with many of his remarks, but I would point out to him that if there is a man in the Dáil who has a right to plead for restraint in speech it is Deputy Mulcahy. Under a very difficult and trying situation he has preserved a restraint which has won the respect, I think, of the whole country. That being so, I think he is entitled to ask that officers of high rank in the Army and Police Forces should, where it is possible, not make public remarks which are likely to hurt the feelings of individuals who have, or have not, records, but, I think, are calculated to hurt the feelings of the very people to whom the Minister for Agriculture referred. A great many officers, obscure officers, who in their time did good service, have gone back to civil life, and have gone back with a feeling of regret that the country could not use their services any longer.

The moral I draw is that, if possible, officers in the Army and officers in the Police Forces should not make speeches in public. I have known Generals in several armies; I have known very few who could be trusted to open their mouths without putting their foot into it, and while it is very desirable that officers should entertain each other, and bear testimony to each other's merits, I think that it would be better if they did not invite the reporters as well. No doubt they were there to hear the President's gratifying tribute to his Ministry and to the Dáil. I do not know whether it was to the Dáil or to the Government Party. But, honestly, I think that the sooner it is established as a custom in the Army and in the Police Forces that their heads are, like civil servants, to be seen and not heard, the better it would be for the State as a whole.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

May I say one word? The Deputy is always, and always will be, on the side of the angels.

The PRESIDENT

It is a very good side to be on, and I wish I were always on it.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Come over here.

The PRESIDENT

I do not think that Deputy Mulcahy's interpretation of the statement made by General O'Duffy is correct. It was not General O'Duffy's intention, nor was it his desire, to make any reflection on any resigned or demobilised officers. The General did not speak from notes. He addressed himself to what had been for some time a matter of concern to officers in the Army, i.e., that Commissions had not been issued. There had been delay in the issue of Commissions. It had been originally intended to have had the Army Act not provisional but permanent. Owing to many causes which it is not necessary to specify, it was found impossible to introduce and get that Act passed into law. Therefore I introduced the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions Act) Continuance and Amendment Act, 1924.

Before making the Proclamation establishing the Forces it was necessary to be in a position to at once issue the Pay Warrant. The Defence Forces were duly proclaimed, and signed Commissions issued to the officers of the Army. These Commissions were issued to the officers by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Military Authorities, and the issue was evidence of good faith.

General O'Duffy had been persistent in his recommendation for the issue of the Commissions. It was in reference to the issue of these Commissions that General O'Duffy addressed himself in the manner he did, namely, that the officers who stood loyal had received their Commissions. In that sense he had in mind only the officers then serving in the Army at the time of his appointment as G.O.C.D.F. and Inspector-General.

The words in question were used without premeditation and more with a view to being complimentary than from any other motive. Nor was there any intention whatever to reflect on the record of any officer.

If it be considered as such, General O'Duffy wishes it to be known that in the event of any person feeling aggrieved by any remarks made by him on the occasion, he disclaims any such intention absolutely.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, November 6th.