asked the Minister for Defence if he will state whether his attention has been drawn to the article in the Dundalk Democrat of November 1st, 1924, descriptive of the incidents at St. Patrick's Cemetery, Dowdallhill, on October 30th, 1924, wherein it is stated the military, after the greater majority of the people had left, rounded up a number of young men and women and searched them, and whether this statement is true as regards the females arrested, and, if so, if he will state if female searchers were employed on the task; further, whether, having regard to recent fatalities, he will state the policy of the Government on the matter of arrests and searches at public meetings.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - SEARCHES AT DUNDALK.
I have seen the newspaper report referred to.
The facts as to the incidents referred to are being inquired into. The investigation has been delayed on account of the holding of an inquest in connection with a death resulting from the incidents. Pending the receipt of the military report I am not in a position to make any statement, but I will communicate with the Deputy on the matter as soon as possible.
As regards the last part of the question the policy of the Government in matters of this character, is to enforce the Public Safety (Powers of Arrest and Detention) Temporary Act, 1924.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, I desire to ask whether in anticipation of movements of military in respect, for instance, of the carrying of arms, any special prohibition was issued for the occasion referred to, or whether any warning was issued to the public as to the danger and risks they ran in attending these demonstrations.
There was, I believe, a measure called the Firearms Act passed in this Dáil. That particular measure was all that was needed in the nature of information to persons carrying arms.
Then, in view of the fact that the presence of armed men at these demonstrations last week was more or less a contingency foreseen by the Government and provided against, may I ask why the innocent public were not informed of the dangers they ran in attending these demonstrations?
I do not think there is any necessity for a reply to that question. It is obvious that a demonstration of armed men, not under the control of the State, but in opposition to the State, cannot be permitted, and every effort will be taken in the present and in the future to prevent any such armed displays. Persons taking part in them do so at their own risk.
The point is that the public should get warning of the risks and dangers they run. Will the President see that on the occasion of future Sinn Fein demonstrations an announcement to that effect will be issued?
If they give us warning that they are going to use these arms at these demonstrations, we will give the necessary warning afterwards.
Will the President say why, if he was not aware of the possibility or likelihood of arms being used, there were forces in such numbers present on this occasion?
I myself gave orders that the military were to attend and prevent any armed displays at those interments.
Does not that suggest that a similar warning should have been given to the public not to be present for fear of a possible fight?
I fail to see why it is necessary to give warning. The thing is well known. Anybody who sees the military there knows what they are there for—to prevent any armed displays. People who see the military present know that they attend to prevent armed displays, and they have sufficient warning in the presence of the troops.