I move the adjournment.
In Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Treatment of Clare Prisoners.
On Thursday last I addressed a question to the Minister for Justice asking if he had received from the Clare Co. Council a resolution demanding that a public sworn inquiry should be held into the charges made against certain C.I.D. men, who were named, by two young men from Clare, Messrs. Cahill and Hassett, and if he had held an inquiry and taken disciplinary action. I got from the Minister a reply to the effect that he had got the resolution and copies of the affidavits, and that the explanation was that these men had come to the house which had been mentioned to hold a courtmartial on certain comrades of theirs, but that the other members did not turn up, that they had been frightened away probably by the fact that the police had come along. He said that he had obtained full reports on the matter, that he had read the documents, and that he had come to the conclusion that these allegations were designed to cover their own criminal conspiracies, that is, the criminal conspiracies, as he alleges, of the comrades of the men who had made affidavits. He said that he did not propose to take any further action in the matter. Now, I should like the House to hear what was stated on oath by the men in question. I want to ask the House whether they are satisfied with the action that the Minister for Justice took—or, rather, his inaction—in this matter; whether they are satisfied that these men deliberately perjured themselves for no other reason than to cover up, as the Minister says, their criminal conspiracies.
One of the affidavits—the affidavit of Michael Cahill—sets forth that he had been at the house of Frank McDermott, Crossmore, Kilmurray McMahon, Co. Clare. Whilst there a number of C.I.D. men entered, amongst them being men named Harmon, Keyes, Driscoll, MacTiernan, O'Sullivan, Larkin, Hanley, Murphy and Mullins. These were men whom he recognised. They came in with drawn revolvers, and then he states that at about 11 o'clock the following took place:
Harman then said "Come on up here the field." I was taken to the centre of the field at the rere of the house. Harman again insisted that I should answer his questions, but again I refused. His queries were accompanied by suggestive clickings of his revolver. After a few minutes and without any provocation on my part, I was seized by the hair of the head by Harman and struck backwards to the ground. After getting up, I was taken towards MaeDermott's house by Harman and another policeman. When I arrived at MaeDermott's, Harman ordered me, saying, "Go and put your back to that wall." I stood up by the wall and the police went towards the door. Some minutes afterwards, I saw John Hassett being taken out by the police. I saw them bringing him to the field at the rere of the house. I was then approached by C.I.D. man Hanley, who said: "Come on this way," pointing to the haggard at the front of the house. I walked towards the haggard accompanied by Hanley, who was followed by two others of the police party. While going through the haggard and without any words, warning, or provocation, I was set upon by Hanley and savagely kicked on the back and legs. I was practically kicked out of the haggard into the adjoining field. Here I received numberless kicks and blows, which showered down upon me like rain. I was felled to the ground several times with blows and kicks. After some time, I was asked by Hanley: "What rank do you hold in the Army?" I made no reply, whereupon I received another rain of savage blows and kicks. After this, I saw others of the police party approaching. They gathered round me, and Hanley now asked me: "Are you going to put this in the paper." He asked me this question several times. I was again assaulted by Hanley and others. I was knocked up against the fence, where I received a further series of merciless blows and kicks all over the body. At the time I heard one of the police say: "We will give him the full charge." I was pulled from the fence and, while standing, one of the police delivered a calculated and deliberate blow on my stomach. I was further chucked and knocked about. At last, I was felled to the ground unconscious. On recovering, I was threatened to be shot by one of the police, who squared out and drew his revolver with the apparent intention of carrying out his murder threat. After some minutes, I was ordered to proceed towards MaeDermott's and commenced to go there, but I heard another of the police saying: "Bring him on this way." I was brought from the field towards MaeDermott's house. I was now in a dazed and battered condition. I was bleeding freely from cuts in the face. My clothes were covered with mud and dirt from the number of times I was knocked to the ground.
That is one affidavit. I will read for Deputies portion of another affidavit relating to the same occasion. This is the affidavit of John Hassett. He says:—
I was ordered by one of them— (that is the C.I.D.)—who said, "Come on down here the field." I was taken to the centre of the field, about forty yards at the rere of the house. I was then questioned as follows: "Were you here last night before?" My answers were not apparently considered satisfactory by the police. I was struck on the side of the head and rushed upon and knocked to the ground. While on the ground, I was kicked on the hip and shoulder. On arising from the ground, I was struck several blows by C.I.D. man Keyes in the face and shoulders, and pressed backwards towards the fence of the field. I was knocked up against this fence and questioned as follows: "Do you know Ryan?""Is it long since you met him?""Tell us the last time you saw him?""Was it a week, a fortnight, or a month?" I finally said I would refuse to answer any of their questions, whereupon I was again assaulted and knocked to the ground. On getting up, replies to the questions were again demanded of me. I again refused to answer. One of the police then said, "We must give you the lead." After some time I was taken towards the house and told to come along down the avenue. While going down the avenue I was asked by one of the police, "Are you a Volunteer?" I refused to answer, whereupon the police then said, "I am afraid you will have to answer when we get you down here a bit."
The Minister for Justice wants us to believe that the men who swore these statements did so in order to cover up their criminal conspiracies. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister for Justice. He is a fish out of water in his present position. He is left here night after night, by men who know the circumstances, to meet charges like this.
I am perfectly happy alone.
We understand the sort of happiness the Minister for Justice speaks of. He is trying to develop a rhinoceros hide. It is a very serious matter for the people of the country generally that there should be a man in the position who knows as little about the circumstances he is dealing with as does the Minister for Justice. We know that the men who are responsible for these threatenings are following a tradition which left us a legacy in this country which we will find it very difficult to get completely rid of. Deputies coming into this House a few days ago were handed a leaflet in which were set out the circumstances of the murder—the brutal murder—a short time ago of some eighteen men. They were arrested, taken out into the country and shot. Deputy Hogan raised this question first. On the particular day on which I put this question on the Paper, there was a question raised by Deputy Corrv relating to the same thing. This thing is happening all over the country, and if we are going to be safe from a repetition of this, we will have to have somebody in the Ministry of Justice who will take his duties seriously, and will not be a mere cipher. The Minister for Justice should realise that his is the most responsible position there is in the Cabinet at the present time in connection with matters of this kind.
I do not know whether he realises that or not. We think he is a mere rubber stamp either for the people who are in his Department or for his colleagues in the Ministry who leave him this most responsible job—a job they should have giyen to one of their members who knows the circumstances thoroughly, and who would be able to deal with them. You require for this office a man of determination—a man who is determined that he will have a disciplined force under him and a force that will command respect in the country. Instead of that, his replies here give the impression to anybody listening to him that he is condoning the irregularities and the brutalities of these men under him. When we ask that there should be an inquiry, he puts the question: "Why do they not go and bring a civil action?" He knows perfectly well that the State is financing appeals when cases of this kind are brought up, and that the men who bring these cases have not got the same purse behind them that the Minister for Justice has. He should know perfectly well that these men are interpreting this inaction on his part, this condoning on his part as an encouragement, whether he means to do so or not. That is why we have this thing taken up in one part of the country and going all round. We all know the circumstances in Dublin. I have affidavits in respect of Dublin. In the case of Clare alone, there are seven affidavits. I have another one that was mentioned by Deputy Hogan in to-day's paper. I am going to let Deputy Hogan continue this particular debate, because it was he who brought this matter before the House first. So far as we are concerned, we regard the attitude of the Minister for Justice as altogether unjustifiable and absolutely unworthy of anybody who holds the position of Minister for Justice. We think he is acting in a way that involves serious danger to the country. This whole campaign and all these arrests follow on the policy that was apparently started by the Government in the Dublin election. They behaved in a manner that I would regard as indecent in this connection.
On a point of order, are we debating the Dublin election or occurrences in Clare?
We are debating the policy which is apparently behind the Minister's action in this matter.
The general principle in all these adjournment debates is that they should be confined as much as possible, and that we should debate specific matters rather than general policy. The question of general policy will arise very shortly on the Minister's Estimate.
We will have an opportunity of dealing with it on the Estimates. I am quite prepared to wait for that occasion. But this sort of thing which is happening all over the country—which is widespread—is not a matter about which we should delay a single hour. I say that every Deputy here should raise his voice against this sort of thing and use whatever influence he has, whatever party he belongs to, to bring it to an end. I say the responsibility is greatest on the supporters of the present Executive. Every one of them who has any regard whatever for fair play and justice, who has any regard for the rights of private citizens of this country, should make his influence felt, so that, though the Minister has developed a rhinoceros hide, there will be some way of penetrating it.
I am so anxious that the Minister should give us some definite and clear reply on this question, that I am going to be very brief. I am not going to give him any excuse to avoid the issue, if he is desirous of an excuse. As I understand it, specific statements have been submitted in certain cases. These statements were submitted to the premier body in Co. Clare and also to an Urban District Council in Co. Clare. They have asked in very explicit terms for a sworn inquiry into the matter contained in these sworn statements. The Minister suggested to-day, as he suggested in previous replies, that these resolutions were inspired by criminally-minded people to cover up their own criminal activities and to create an atmosphere. Speaking as a local representative in Co. Clare— I mean as a representative on the Co. Council—I repudiate emphatically the statement that Clare Co. Council would be either frightened or obliged by action of any kind, or by coercion of any kind, to pass a resolution, as it did unanimously, to create an atmosphere for any party or for any criminally-minded people in any county. I repudiate that very emphatically. As Vice-Chairman of the Co. Council I repudiate it, and I tell the Minister that Clare Co. Council has never been badgered and never been forced to pass a resolution of that kind by criminally-minded people. The resolution was put in very explicit terms, and it gives the Minister the opportunity of clearing the detective division of the Gárda Síochána from any blame in this matter. The resolution states:
We earnestly beg to impress upon the Government of the Free State the very grave and serious menace to the welfare and peace of mind of the citizens by allowing such allegations to remain uninquired into, as such a course of proceeding by the elected Government, whether arising from apathy or disdain, will lead the common people of this country to believe that the liberty of the subject has ceased and that this country has reverted to the conditions that existed during the period of the Black and Tan régime.
That does not seem to be a resolution which was drafted to hide the activities of criminally-minded people or to create an atmosphere. That is a resolution rather to clear the atmosphere and to let people in the county know what is happening. The Minister stated he made inquiries. From whom? What machinery did he use for the inquiries? Did he ask the people who were charged to make inquiries on his behalf? I made inquiries. When this resolution came to me couched in these terms and speaking of the Black and Tan régime, I instituted inquiries. None of us has happy memories of the Black and Tan régime. I asked two or three persons who have to go through the district in West Clare, where these things are alleged to have occurred, what was the position. One of these persons was a Government supporter. I do not think he would give me a vote in a hundred years, and I do not think he would give Deputy de Valera a vote in any circumstances. I inquired very minutely, and I asked him was there a state of terror in the district. He told me that the people were as much afraid of being beaten, struck and ill-treated as they were during the Black and Tan régime. I inquired from another man who has to go through the district every fortnight, and possibly every week. He told me that a state of terror did exist. He told me that the only difference between the position now and the position during the Black and Tan régime was that the people were not as much afraid now of being shot as they were then, but that they were just as much afraid of being ill-treated, beaten and molested. I put it to the Minister, if he is so positive there is no evidence whatever on this matter, that he should take the Clare Co. Council at its word and institute an inquiry. There is no danger of any innocent people being prejudiced. The names of the Gárda are mentioned. If he is so positive that there is no evidence, then he should grant an inquiry as regards the Clare C.I.D. in respect of these statements. That is an easy matter. He should give every chance. I tell him distinctly that he ought not to tell this Dáil or to tell the country that any public body in Co. Clare has been inspired by any criminally-minded person, or badgered by any organisation, to pass a resolution that will hide, or attempt to hide, people who are criminally-minded or create an atmosphere for them.
I must thank Deputy de Valera for his very kind remarks about me. They are a little inconsistent, because I find that I am a mere bit of sealing-wax at one moment, and at another moment that I have such a rhinoceros hide that even the trenchent eloquence of Deputy de Valera cannot make any impression upon it. What are the facts of this particular matter? You have Guards who have got to do their duty. You have got Guards who are facing men who are engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the liberties of the citizens of this State. You have such a force existing, and you know it. You know that, unfortunately, there have been recently two very serious crimes committed, and you know it is the duty of the Guards to prevent that criminal association actively working. What happened? The Guards arrest. Whenever a Guard arrests a person there is no simpler thing for him to do than to make a charge of brutality, a charge of having been assaulted, and then he can come here to the Dáil and through Deputy de Valera, or through some other Deputy of that Party, he can pull the strings and make the Deputies opposite dance to his bidding—that is when he is endeavouring to bring charges against the Guards to prevent them discharging their duty. These men know—every single man of them knows—that the Guards are an effective force, that the Guards are a well-disciplined, a well-organised and a well-conducted force. The only method by which they can carry on is simply to endeavour to discredit the Guards in the eyes of the public. That they have heretofore failed to do, and that they will fail to do in the future, even though at every single request they make Deputy de Valera or somebody like him can be got to make charges.
This matter which has been raised to-night is rather old. I have not got the actual date by me, but it is a couple of months old. If my recollection is not at fault, it occurred some time early in March. Perhaps the Deputy would tell me the date in the affidavits.
February 19 is the date here.
That is earlier than I thought. The matter is over two months old and is now brought up in the Dáil. It is alleged that these men were assaulted. There were the courts; why have they not gone to the courts? There is need, we are told, for a public inquiry; there is need for setting up a special tribunal. If these men have any grievance, they have the ordinary courts to go into. They can ventilate their grievance in the ordinary court if they have a grievance. If they were assaulted they can go into the ordinary courts. Two months have passed. They have not availed of the law that exists and they have not availed themselves of the courts as they could have done. What have they done? They have gone to the Co. Council, and the Co. Council, without any more information than these affidavits before them have passed a resolution. They have gone to the Urban Council, and the Urban Council, without having anything more than these affidavits before them have passed a similar resolution. Why do not these men go into the courts if they have got any grievance? The courts are there to right any wrong that any citizen of this country may suffer. What is the object of debates of this nature here? Why does not Deputy de Valera say to these men, if he is in touch with them, and why does not Deputy Hogan through his Co. Council—I hope he is not in touch with them—say to them: "You have the ordinary courts there and you should avail of the ordinary courts."
That has not been done. Why has it not been done? It is much simpler to go before Peace Commissioners and swear affidavits and get publicity in this Dáil. It is a simpler thing to do that and to take, one after another, the Deputies from the Opposition Benches; lately it appears Deputy Hogan is joining in.
Deputy Hogan is joining in on every occasion when there is an allegation of injustice to a citizen. It is not lately he did that. He always did it and always will.
Whenever there is an allegation of injustice to a citizen, Deputy Hogan's idea is to have a special sworn inquiry.
Mr. Hogan
His idea is that it should be inquired into.
Whenever a citizen has been wronged. Deputy Hogan's idea is that there should be a sworn inquiry. What are the ordinary courts for? Why are we to set up special tribunals? Special tribunals are only set up in certain circumstances in which the courts cannot reasonably be expected to function. Are we to set up a special tribunal for every person who says he has been assaulted by the Guards and who is willing to swear affidavits? We know what the value of affidavits is. To hear Deputy de Valera talk you would think that nobody in this country had ever been known to tell anything but the truth when on his oath. Deputy de Valera seems to think that because a statement is made by affidavit it must be true, that everybody who makes an affidavit is a perfectly reliable person, who has been telling the truth, and can do nothing else but tell the truth. That is Deputy de Valera's seeming position. My position is completely different. I consider that when any allegations are made against the Guards it is for me to look into these allegations and see if a prima facie case has been established. If so, then I am responsible for the discipline of the Guards, and I see that the Guards are disciplined, and if any Guard misconducts himself he suffers punishment. That is the regular course which has never been deviated from, and which will never be deviated from.
If any single member of this conspiracy—I do not suppose that anyone in this House will deny that these four men are prominent members in Clare of this particular conspiracy—considers that by making affidavits before a Peace Commissioner and not going into court, they can have a special sworn inquiry, they are greatly mistaken. They will not have it. Deputy de Valera talks about condoning brutalities. There is no condoning of brutalities. If any violence is used by a Guard towards a prisoner, the case is properly investigated and properly dealt with, but there must be a case which requires investigation. These cases, in my judgment, do not require special investigation of any kind. They are cases in which the individuals who allege they are aggrieved can take the same course as any other individual in this community—that is to say, they can avail themselves of the ordinary Courts of Justice which have been set up by this Oireachtas.
Arising out of what the Minister has stated, may I ask what action he has taken against Detective Officer Pluck, who was fined two pounds for assault on a prisoner the other day.
I think that is a very improper question, because the Deputy knows perfectly well that there is an appeal.
Sit down.
There has been an appeal in that case, and I would submit that it is a most improper thing for a Deputy to make any allusions in this House to a case that is sub judice.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday at 3 p.m.