asked the President whether he is aware that Samuel Maguire, a civil servant with twenty-six years' service, was dismissed on 30th December, 1924, at a moment's notice; that he has never been informed of the charges on which the dismissal order was based; that he has volunteered to submit himself to any investigation into his conduct and the manner in which he carried out his duties, and whether the case will be re-opened with a view to giving Mr. Maguire an opportunity of refuting any charges that may have been made against him.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DISMISSED CIVIL SERVANT.
Mr. Maguire was dismissed, with others, by order of the Executive Council, dated 29th December, 1924, because the Council had reason to believe that he was in close and active association with efforts which were at the time being made to suborn from their allegiance members of the Army and other State services with a view to renewing the attempt to subject the Government to pressure of an unconstitutional nature. It is not proposed to re-open the cases of persons dismissed on that occasion.
Mr. MURPHY
I am sorry I have not caught the President's answer very fully.
I will read it out again.
Mr. MURPHY
That is not necessary. I take it that his reply was that this man was dismissed in connection with the Army mutiny?
Yes.
Mr. MURPHY
Will the President say how that could be, when the Army mutiny took place in March, 1924, and he was not dismissed until the following December?
It was not in connection with the incidents of March, 1924. It was understood generally, I think, that the incidents in connection with the episode of March, 1924, had then ceased. From information which was available to the Executive Council on 29th December, 1924, it appeared that these activities had not ceased, and, in consequence, this action was taken.
In view of the fact that this man is anxious that an inquiry should be held, does the President not think the request that he should have a fair trial is a reasonable one in view of the fact that it only "appeared" to the Executive Council that he was engaged in this conspiracy?
I suppose I might have amplified that answer by saying that it had appeared to the satisfaction of the Executive Council, and that this incident occurred long after the other matter referred to by Deputy Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY
Is the President aware that this man controverts the whole of the charges that were made against him, that he denies absolutely having done anything that was not in accordance with his duty as a public servant and as a citizen of the State?
I believe that the Executive Council was in possession of all the information.
Mr. MURPHY
May I take it that the Executive Council will not give him an opportunity of seeing the charges made against him or an opportunity of refuting them?
The answer to that is really involved in the last part of the answer that I gave: "It is not proposed to re-open the cases of persons dismissed on that occasion."
Mr. MURPHY
Is the President aware that in a case where a man was dismissed from the public service when the British Government were in control here the practice was always to supply him with a copy of the evidence against him?
I cannot say that I am aware of that, but I do know that on this occasion an opportunity was afforded to some officers who were in the Army in October, 1924, of submitting reasons why they should not be dismissed.
Mr. MURPHY
I presume that the President is aware of the fact that if Mr. Maguire had been in the service of the State before the Treaty his dismissal could not have taken place except under Article X. of the Treaty. In view of the fact that he was recalled to this country at the request of the late General Collins, which I understand was the position, does it not seem very hard that he should be dismissed in this very arbitrary fashion? I may say that I would not defend the attitude of any man who would be found guilty of the charges that the President has mentioned, but I am interested in this because this man absolutely denies the whole charge.
There are just one or two points that I might mention in connection with this matter: I do not know whether this is strictly in answer to what the Deputy has said. The Executive Council had no reason to be dissatisfied with this officer's service in respect of anything except what I have mentioned. It has come to my notice that some story has been circulated that other charges than that I have mentioned had been made against him. There was no other charge. As far as his conduct was concerned it was above reproach and he was an excellent officer except with regard to the matter of these unfortunate incidents that occurred in connection with certain demobilised officers and other officers in 1924. I think it is due to Mr. Maguire to state that. As regards the question put by the Deputy regarding Article X. Article X. does not enshrine officials covered by it with special protection against dismissal on a charge such as this. If he were an officer who had all the advantages of Article X. it would nevertheless have been open to the Executive Council to take the action that they did take in this case.
Mr. MURPHY
Does not the President consider that if a time comes when the Government is changed and a new Party takes possession of the reins of Government, it would be open to them to dismiss civil servants who would differ from them politically in the same fashion? I suggest to the President that it opens up very dangerous possibilities in regard to the future.
The fact is that very few civil servants have been dismissed by the Executive Council, and certainly in no case where a dismissal has taken place has that course been adopted without the Executive Council having been perfectly satisfied that they would be remiss in their duty if they did not act in the fashion I have outlined.
In the interests of the civil servants of to-day, when another Government comes into power will it not have a precedent set by this for removing civil servants, for political activities or otherwise?
I would like to make this point perfectly clear, that the Executive Council in this matter did not concern itself with this question of political motives, that it was a question of subordinating the State. No matter what party is in power it must exercise its judgment in relation to these things, and I might say that if there was one duty more painful than another that the Executive Council had to perform, it was the action that they took in this case. I think that in no circumstances could a man have had a fairer court to try the case or one more anxious to take into consideration the services that the Deputy has mentioned, or the fact that the late General Collins brought this man into the service.