I oppose the nominations that have been made by the President, with particular reference to the Department of Justice. We are aware of the numerous Acts that have been passed through the Department of Justice, and we are particularly aware of the most recent Act, which shows a partial administration of justice, or a party administration of justice, by the Ministry of Justice, or should I say injustice? I refer to the Public Safety Act. That Act out-Herods any partial or coercionary measure that has been introduced into this House at any time in the period when we had partial and coercionary administration. Under that Act powers have been vested in the group, as it has been called by you, sir, that has been nominated by the President to declare what shall or shall not be an unlawful association. It does not rest with this House, which has no veto and no power to restrain or curb them. Of course, it will be said the Act is only directed against assassins, and so on, but I find in that group one who has openly proclaimed that on this side of the House is the party of assassination, and no attempt has been made to explain that statement. The Public Safety Act followed on that statement which was made by a member of the group now proposed for ratification by this House before the Public Safety Act became law, and indeed, after it. No matter how the Act is veiled, no matter how a smoke screen has been tried to be flung around it, it is quite clear and obvious to anybody that it is an attempt to try and secure for the Party on the opposite benches control of Government, and to wipe out of the country anything that may be national that may stand in the way. That is the objective quite clearly, and no amount of talk about assassins, and whom it was directed against, and that kind of thing, can veil the intention that was operating in the minds of the Executive Council when they drafted that Act.
Mention was made a few weeks ago by the President of an independent judiciary. I assume the President thinks he has appointed an independent judiciary. If he has, it seems strange that he cannot trust them to decide who are assassins and who are not. It seems strange that he is afraid he cannot rely on the judges he appointed to decide cases which may be called criminal or otherwise under this Act. It seems strange that he must vest in this group, now put before the House for ratification, powers to define and decide what is an unlawful association. It does not rest with this House to decide it. It does not even rest with this House to question it, and then having got that far with the dictatorship, he proceeds to hand over to the Minister for Justice complete and absolute power to expel from this country anybody he may choose. He goes farther under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, and hands over power to Civic Guard superintendents to arrest and detain anybody on suspicion without any trial. He cannot trust the independent judiciary. They could not trust them. Perhaps they might feel if they were an independent judiciary that after all it is not because you are a political opponent that you are a criminal. They could not be trusted with that power.
I suppose it will be said that the Civic Guards are absolutely independent, absolutely impartial. We had it stated here yesterday what Civic Guard superintendents have done in Kerry. I can give plenty of other examples to any of the group opposite who want to inquire—I am sure they do not—as to acts by Civic Guard superintendents, by Civic Guards and by C.I.D. men, who, during the election, assumed the name of "stewards," and so on, who have shown themselves partial and who are people that nobody except a partial Administration would ever think of giving the powers proposed to be given under the Public Safety Act. In Castleisland and Knocknagoshel, Co. Kerry, you had a superintendent that thought it was his duty to commandeer the cars of the Fianna Fáil people in the campaign when they were going to a meeting, and that thought it his duty under the alleged impartial Administration opposite to seize the personation and other papers that were being distributed to conform with the formalities required of people doing personation work during the election. He thought it his duty also when remonstrated with to arrest people who had been forwarding the campaign in Co. Kerry on behalf of Fianna Fáil. He is one of the gentlemen to whom it is proposed to hand over the administration of certain sections of the Public Safety Act. Only a year ago — I believe it was mentioned in this House—you had one of the most brutal and atrocious crimes that could have disgraced any country committed down in Waterford, where Civic Guards took out prisoners, stripped them naked and beat them. These people will be incapacitated for their lifetime. They have suffered permanent injuries as a result of the beating. During the election I saw those "stewards" in my own constituency, or at least I have reports about them in my own constituency, going out and tearing down posters and beating the Fianna Fáil workers. I suppose they thought it their duty to do that, being the servants of the so-called impartial Administration on the other side.
I suppose it will be said by the President, as was said recently, that he is out to have no truce with crime: But the President knows that the group he is now putting up here for ratification by the Dáil have trucked with crime. I have all the facts before me and the House shall get the facts. He knows that a certain Lieutenant Larkin, of the Free State Army, who was charged and convicted of the murder of an old man, and sentenced by one of his independent judiciary to eight years, was released after eighteen months. The public, of course, did not know that. He knows that there was a Lieutenant Green, of the Free State Army, who was convicted of the murder of a prisoner, who after being sentenced to death had his sentence commuted to fifteen years' penal servitude. Of course, he was let out after two years. No truck and truce with crime! Private Lean, of the Free State Army, was convicted of the murder of a civilian in Kerry. His death sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life and he was let out after two years. No truce with crime, of course! Private Gordon, of the Free State Army, was convicted of murder, sentenced to death, his sentence commuted to penal servitude for fifteen years, and he was let out after two years. Lieutenant McQuaid, of the Free State Army, similarly convicted and let out after two years. Lieutenant McNally, of the Free State Army, sentenced to seven years and let out after two years. Sergeant-Major Kiernan, of the Free State Army, for attempted murder was sentenced to ten years. A petition, I believe, is under consideration and he has been promised his release. Captain P.K. Hardy, of the Free State Army, convicted of armed robbery at Portobello Post Office, and sentenced to seven years; released after eighteen months. Mr. Oldham, keeping a disorderly house and engaging in white slave traffic, released after two months, although sentenced to two years. No truce with crime! These are facts. It is well that the House should know them and know the sincerity behind statements like "No truce with crime." Does it mean that of you wore green yesterday and committed an offence last night, you would be released in the morning for the wearing of the green?
On the other side, you have Republican prisoners that at a time when embittered feelings prevailed, when civil strife or civil war was going on in the country, were charged with political offences and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. Everybody knows how those sentences were calculated. It is only necessary to give one example. A Mr. Keogh was sentenced to ten years; he said, "Up the Republic," and the Judge said, "Twenty years." No attempt has been made to review those sentences; no effort has been made to investigate them in the calmer atmosphere that should obtain, and which did not obtain at the time those sentences were imposed. Already we see the fruits of the Public Safety Act. Deputy Lemass yesterday referred to the case of Sean MacBride. No offence has been proved against him and no offence dare be proved against him, except the offence of trying to serve Ireland according to his lights, as his father tried to serve Ireland before him. There is no evidence that can be adduced, but he must be kept in prison on the information of a Mr. Ennis, who, I believe, is a Superintendent of the Civic Guards. You have the case of a man prominent in the Irish-Ireland movement—Edward O'Reilly, of Rossmore, Co. Tipperary—who was arrested in February last and returned for trial to the Central Criminal Court. A Habeas Corpus application was made to the court here and an undertaking was given, on behalf of the Attorney-General, I assume, that he would be tried very quickly. Three criminal courts have passed by and he has not been tried yet. Of course, he is a Republican — it does not matter how long he is kept in.
These are some of the facts showing the maladministration, the outrageous administration, I should say, by the Department of Justice. There are other aspects of it that I would also like to deal with. There is, amongst others, the system that has been established in the Department of Justice of dealing with appeals. It has been stated, I believe, in this House that the system of appeal on stenographers' notes was devised for the purpose and with the objective of securing speedy and inexpensive termination of proceedings in the courts. On the contrary, the result of it has been, and it has been proved to the Department of Justice for at least two years, that it only results in wholesale delay, and they have had to appoint Commissioners, and so on, to deal with the surplus of work that has accumulated. We hear it said that delays destroy the credit of the country. But in the Department of Justice delays do not matter, although they may affect the credit of the country.
The expenses that used to obtain, previously, where there was an appeal from the County Court, now the Circuit Court, amounted to something like £19. To-day to appeal on what was called an inexpensive procedure and which formerly cost £19, costs something like £80 or £90. Of course, because it is said by Deputies on the benches opposite that it is inexpensive, we are supposed to believe it, but the people who have to pay find that the statement is not so accurate. In addition, to try and secure, perhaps, that the judiciary would not be independent, a system has been followed of appointing temporary judges. Practice has shown and proved that temporary judges do not make for an independent judiciary, and do not make for independent or impartial administration of the law. That, I think, has been quite clearly proved and demonstrated to-day in the country.
It might be asked what alternative have you, because I find there is a great inclination on the part of those opposite, instead of meeting criticism, to ask what is your alternative. The alternative is that the number of Judges of the High Court could be much less if there had been more Circuit Judges, and if, instead of having those appeals on stenographers' notes, some of the Circuit Judges could be transferred from time to time from one country to another to deal with appeals and have a viva voce examination.
Another matter that has been neglected is the fact that a number of resigned R.I.C. men have not been given the pension or compensation that they were promised. There are a number of these cases in the country, and I think the only case that can be made against giving them their pensions or compensation is that there is a suspicion that they have certain political opinions. There was a case three or four months ago where a resigned R.I.C. man in Mayo had his house broken into at four o'clock in the morning by some of those "stewards" or C.I.D. men, and told that he would get his compensation if he would give information regularly as to the activities of Republicans in that district. These are facts. If there is any desire to get the names, the names can be given. Similarly, throughout the country there are numbers of men of the R.I.C. who resigned during the Black-and-Tan war and gave their services to the country, and because of the suspicion amongst this alleged impartial administration that they have some Irish-Ireland outlook or Republican outlook or some outlook to secure ultimately the complete and absolute independence of the country, they are refused the pension and compensation that they were promised, and which it was undertaken that they would receive at the time they resigned and afterwards.
These are some of the facts with regard to the Department of Justice. They must bring home to any of us the seriousness of the step that is being taken in appointing here to day the Minister for Justice. I would like to know, as Deputy O'Connell would like to know, what is the policy of the Minister for Justice? But, apparently, we are not to get any information as to the policy of any of the Ministers whose names are now before the House for ratification until they are practically appointed. We are not to receive any information as to whether they are to pursue this policy of coercion, and we are not to hear, apparently, except in a vague way, from the President whether it is now his policy to put the Public Safety Act into full and effective operation. Does he think that as a result of the statement that he was going to put it into full operation, he has received from the electorate a mandate to do that? Does he think that this kind of thing which has obtained for the last two or three years of releasing people convicted of murder, and because they were members of the Free State Army, and without this House being informed or knowing about it, is to continue, and that one section of this community can commit crimes, can go out and murder fellow-citizens, not in time of war and of strife and trouble, and that they can after a few months in prison have them condoned? Does he think he can go out to the people and fool them, saying: "No truce with crime," when there has been private and secret condonement of crime? These facts I put before the House in urging it not to accept the nominations made by the President.