Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 May 1929

Vol. 30 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 31—Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).

Debate resumed on motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." (Mr. Ruttledge.)

When the debate stopped at seven o'clock, I was dealing with certain statements made by Deputy Boland to a Chief Superintendent who interviewed him and Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly. The statement was this:

Deputy Boland said that it had leaked out on the Friday before the murder that the late Minister had threatened to take drastic disciplinary action against certain members of the C.I.D. and that this action was resented by the higher authorities of the police and that a climax had been reached.

That was put forward by Deputy Boland as the reason for the assassination of the late Minister for Justice. He linked it up with what he said this afternoon and what he said in a previous debate. He linked it up with the findings in the Waterford case and the punishment meted out by the Minister in the Waterford case. I have already stated what the punishments were—two superintendent cautioned, one superintendent transferred. The most serious sentence imposed and the most serious condemnation given out, was one sergeant severely reprimanded with record, warned for reduction, reverted to uniformed force and transferred from the Division. Another sergeant was transferred from the Division; a detective officer severely reprimanded with record, warned for dismissal and transferred from the Division; another detective officer severely reprimanded with record, warned for dismissal and transferred from the Division. Now from the back benches of Fianna Fáil even, I heard murmurs that these sentences were too light; that heavier and more drastic punishment ought to have been meted out. Yet Deputy Boland said, in effect, that these punishments were sufficiently strong and severe, that though they happened in January, 1927, and the acts were committed in January, 1927, they were a cause, or a possible cause, for the murder of the Minister for Justice.

Perhaps the Minister is not aware that very important evidence could not be produced at that inquiry because people were threatened and warned by these men that if they gave such evidence they would deal with them.

I am not aware of that fact. I never heard it before. Not only was that inquiry held, but there was some subsequent action taken by the persons affected, and I am sure that if there was such evidence it would have been brought forward then. However, it has nothing to do with what we are now discussing.

Seeing that the Minister is giving a report of a private interview with the Guards, a report of one side of that interview, I want to know will I get an opportunity of giving my side of the interview.

What interview is it?

Mr. Boland

Of course you were not in the Chair, A Chinn Comhairle, when the report was read.

Certain allegations have been made against the Civic Guard. I am showing the foundations upon which these rested. After they were made by Deputy O'Kelly in this House, he was interviewed by a Superintendent, specially detailed for that purpose. I am using this for the purpose of showing how baseless the charges brought by Fianna Fáil Deputies against the Guards are.

The Minister is giving the version of the Superintendent who interviewed Deputy Boland?

What does Deputy Boland want?

Mr. Boland

There was no intimation given to me that this was to be made public. I claim the same privilege and the same right, and that Deputy O'Kelly and I are entitled to give our version of what occurred. He has mentioned the name of the men who interviewed me, and I presume I will be given a chance of stating my version.

If the Deputy says that a certain statement made by one of the most important and most responsible officers in the Guards is wrong, I would be glad to hear what is wrong about it.

I am prepared to hear Deputy Boland, but merely on what transpired at the interview.

Mr. Boland

That is all I want.

We have also what Deputy Boland said here to-night, and his clear statement is that the punishments meted out in January, because of the Waterford inquiry, were connected with the murder of the late Minister for Justice. That is what I took him to mean.

Mr. Boland

I will explain it all later on.

"Mr. Boland continuing, said that the late Minister had been ruthless in dealing with certain members of the Army who were no ornament to the Army. He mentioned this as an instance to show the late Minister's strength in dealing with either the Army or the Police. He went on to say that any detective investigating a crime looks for a motive, and he stated that in his opinion there was sufficient motive in the indiscipline of the Gárda to justify an inquiry into the state of affairs in the Gárda on the Friday previous to the crime. He stated that no inquiry had been held, and that he and his Party were not satisfied that there had been full investigation of the crime in the absence of such inquiry. He said that in his opinion a prima facie case existed in the state of affairs in the Gárda to justify the arrest of certain members of same for the murder, and that there existed a sufficient motive in the threatened disciplinary action for the murder by the disaffected members of the ‘C.I.D.' I asked him to name one of these, and he replied: ‘Neligan knows a good deal about it.' Mr. Boland stated that his view was held extensively throughout the country by different classes and by members of different political parties. I asked him if he had anything more definite than the motive alleged by him, and he said he had not. He said that the Government Party had attributed the crime to his Party, and that his Party felt they were justified in making the charges contained in his and their speeches, but that their charges are not by way of ‘You're another,' but were well founded. I said I was not concerned with what political parties said of one another."

Mr. Boland

Would the Minister repeat the second last sentence?

"He said that the Government Party had attributed the crime to his Party and that his Party felt that they were justified in making the charges contained in his and in their speeches, but that their charges are not by way of ‘You're another' but were well founded."

Mr. Boland

Quite correct.

He will tell us what the good foundation was.

No, he will not. Deputy Boland wishes to give his version of what transpired at the interview, but we are not going back through the whole matter like an endless chain.

"I said I was not concerned with what political parties said of one another, but that I wanted to come to the point as to what extent he could assist me in investigating the crime. I asked him again if he could give me anything more than a motive, and he said he could not."

Though he knew the charges were well founded he could do no more than give a motive.

Surely I said more than that.

I have not finished the interview yet. Deputy O'Kelly drags in for a moment a delightfully interesting interlude. "Mr. O'Kelly then said that he had made very full inquiries from Republican sources and that he was satisfied that the crime was not committed by Republicans. Mr. Boland agreed." That is a very interesting statement. It shows a very nice state of affairs. Here is Deputy O'Kelly, and he goes round to all the potential murderers, all actual murderers that he knows, and says to them, "Did you murder Deputy O'Higgins, or do you know who murdered the late Minister for Justice?" He goes round in this fashion, and gently and simply he thinks that those persons are going to tell him "Yes."

Did you go around to the murderers that you know?

He thinks that the guilty persons are going to make a confession of guilt to him. Now, if that is correct, what type of man is Deputy O'Kelly himself? What type of person is the Deputy who sits second in command of the Fianna Fáil Party? He is the sort of person, according to himself, to whom the murderer with absolute impunity can admit that he has committed murder. What else does that mean? If those persons who he thought had committed, or possibly could have committed, this murder had told him: "Oh, yes, it was done by us," would he have given the information? It must have been one or the other. I think he must have thought that they would trust him, and trust him implicitly. If a murderer was willing to inform him and say "Yes, I committed the murder," what type of man must Deputy O'Kelly be? And because he goes round to certain Republicans and asks them, and they plead not guilty, then of course Republicans, in his view and in Deputy Boland's view, are not guilty. A simple plea is sufficient to satisfy them. I will go on:

"Both Mr. Boland and Mr. O'Kelly said that as far as they knew the investigation of the trial was a one-sided affair and confined to inquiries made about Republicans, some of whom were arrested, including persons who were at present members of the Dáil. I informed them that our enquiries had covered every section of the community. Mr. Boland nodded approval of that, but suggested that inquiries should be made as to the whereabouts of the C.I.D. members on the morning of the murder. I said that we knew where every member was on that morning, and he said that he was not aware of that. Mr. Boland said that it was significant that the detective who was guarding the Minister turned back to the house before the shooting. I informed him that that was an unfortunate circumstance, but that there was nothing in the suggestion. Messrs. Boland and O'Kelly finished by saying that this was all they had to tell us and we parted. Both treated us during the interview in a friendly and courteous manner. I did not proceed to take written statements from them as the substance of their statements did not warrant same. I beg to add that the interview does not advance the investigation of the crime."

Now, we had this definite statement made in the House:

"Some of the men responsible for the murder of Kevin O'Higgins are in the employment and pay of those men and not one of them has been tried or arrested for it. These are deliberate statements. I am speaking with a sense of responsibility. I know what I am talking about. I know these men."

He knows all this, and can state definitely that he knows that the late Minister for Justice——

What is the Minister quoting from?

I gave this quotation before, a Chinn Comhairle. It is from Vol. 29, No. 5 of the Official Debates, column 1832. That is what Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly says in this House. That is the nature of the charge which he brings against the Guards in this House. He is asked to give us evidence and to show how he reached that conclusion. He is asked that by a responsible police officer who goes to him to see if Deputy O'Kelly, having made a statement like that, can give any information which would be helpful to the investigation of the crime. Clearly and definitely as Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly spoke, when it is all over one of the most able officers in the Civic Guard sums up the whole interview in these words: "I beg to add that the interview does not advance the investigation of the crime." Here are all those charges by Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, here are all the charges made by Deputy Boland against the Civic Guards in this connection, and where do they all end? They all end in smoke. There was nothing got from them but a possibly suggested motive, and that is the type of charge against the Civic Guards that the Fianna Fáil Party are ready and willing to bring, and then they complain that their charges are treated with contumely. Here was a definite statement that could be of assistance to the Guards, and when it is investigated by an officer of the Guards, who goes to see the Deputies, what is the result? Not a single bit of information is at their disposal, and not a single bit of information which they could give. That is the type of their charges, and they complain that people who act in that fashion are treated with contumely when they act in fashions similar to that.

I have already stated clearly what has happened, and that these persons outside the House know that they cannot carry on their conspiracies and that they cannot carry out their crimes unless they shake the morale of the Guards. I have stated that every single thing, in my judgment, that Fianna Fáil could do inside this House to help them Fianna Fáil is doing. We are told by the great advocate of peace and the rest of his Party, perhaps, that there is no alliance between those gunmen outside the House and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, acting as they are. Why are they in communication with those persons? The other day Deputy Derrig told us, when he was talking on the Juries Bill, that under sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the Juries Bill certain persons can be excluded, that is, persons known to be or suspected of being concerned or associated in acts of intimidation of jurors or witnesses, or acts of a treasonable or seditious character, or otherwise hostile to law, peace and good order, or is known to associate with persons concerned, and so on. The Deputy said:—

"On the question of association, I should like to ask Deputies should not the fact that you give an officer of the Gárda the right to have a Press representative excluded by reason of the character of certain issues of a paper with which he is connected in a certain way, be sufficient without dragging in here another provision by which many of us on this side of the House, at any rate, could be excluded from court if we went there as Press representatives?"

There is no friendship, no alliance at all between this I.R.A. and Fianna Fáil. Oh, no, none at all. No friendship, no alliance at all. Yet Deputy Derrig says you are in such close communication—some of them—that though you are in daily and close communication with them you hate their policy and you hate their aims.

The Minister should address the Chair.

They hate the policy and they hate the aims of those persons, but they are in daily and close communication—most of them—with them. We had it from Deputy Little to-day how often he associates with the people in 27 Suffolk Street.

May I ask the Minister does he regard it as a crime to be a Republican?

I regard it as a crime to be a Republican who is endeavouring by force of arms, murder and other criminal acts to upset the existing State. That I consider to be a crime. I say that anybody who attempts by force to upset the existing State is a criminal. I say if you are in daily association with them and encouraging them that you are encouraging and association with criminals.

The Minister has made a mistake, and somebody outside might suffer as a consequence of that. The mistake is that 27 Suffolk Street is a public house.

It may be that. I understood that was the number Deputy Little said he was in the habit of visiting.

The number is right, but the Minister missed the street.

I admit I was wrong in the street. It should be 27 Dawson Street. We have it from Deputy Little that he is in the habit of visiting 27 Dawson Street, but still they are not in association with and are not helping on those gunmen. After all, there is one clear, big issue which comes out on the discussion on this Vote, and that is that there is going to be one and only one Government in this country.

There are two.

There is one Government in the Irish Free State, and it is the only Government in the Free State. Is there going to be in the Free State one Government and only one Government? At the present moment should there be two Governments? That is the main issue between our Party and the Opposition. We say there is one Government and one Government only. There is one Executive and one Executive only, and that is the Executive appointed by the representatives of the Irish people in this Dáil by this Dáil. We say there is one law-making and only one lawmaking power, in this country, and that is the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State. On the other hand we have it from the Deputies opposite that there are two.

Quote the speech.

We have it right through everything they say. I challenged them on this and I challenge them again. Is this the de jure Government, or is the alleged Government outside, the I.R.A., the de jure Government? I challenged Deputy de Valera tonight on that and he ran away.

You are running away now.

I am here. I want an answer to my question. We had the statement from Deputy de Valera, which I have quoted before, that the other persons who carry on are the successors of the Government of which he was a member up to 1925. Has he ever said that was an illegitimate or improper Government?

Quote what he did say.

I have quoted it. It was on the debate on the Juries Bill. I will quote it again.

They ought to have it by heart now.

I have quoted the passage, but at the moment I have not got the volume by me. I will quote it again. I put it to Deputy de Valera, did not that mean that the persons outside, this handful of men outside, were the real de jure Government of this country? When I challenged him on that he ran away. What is the Party opposite doing the whole time except this, coming into this Dáil and swearing allegiance to the institutions of this existing State, and then praising up as the real, true Irish patriots the persons who have not come in, the persons who are daily committing outrages, and that is the real difference between us and the Party opposite. We state clearly and definitely that here in this House there is one authority and one authority only, and the laws made by that authority and the courts established by that authority, everybody in this State must obey.

Do Deputies opposite say that? I should like to hear a single one of them say that. I have not heard them say it yet; I have heard the very opposite. There are those persons outside and everybody in the House knows it. They have got their arms and they are endeavouring to organise themselves so that they may use these arms. We know that, and everybody in the House knows it. What is the attitude of Deputies opposite to that? Do they encourage us when we, through the Guards, preserve peace and order in this country? Do they give us any encouragement or any help, or do they give any discouragement to those persons outside who are claiming powers independent of this Oireachtas? Never inside this House have I heard them discourage those persons, or tell them that they were acting criminally and wrongly when they endeavoured to upset this State.

We have a position in this country which must be faced, not shirked, as Deputies would have it shirked, by patience. Let us have patience, they say. Let us shirk it by patience; let anything that they like be done, but carry on with patience. That is not our attitude. We will not shirk our difficulties; we will overcome our difficulties. We will not have patience with criminals. It was stated by the President here that we would have no patience with crime, and we will have no patience with crime, and we will have no toleration for crime. We are going to make this country safe for every law-abiding person. We are going to make it safe for every juryman who does his duty and for every witness who honestly gives evidence according to his conscience. We will make this country safe for persons of that class, and for law-abiding citizens.

Various old charges have been again brought up against the Guards. We went back to 1926, to the Newport case.

It is still in the courts.

Deputy Goulding informed us of what I call an imaginary conversation which is supposed to have taken place in 1926 and which he reads out three years afterwards. The Deputy unfortunately did not, in the beginning of his speech at any rate, speak very loudly, and I could not catch his opening sentences. I do not know whether he mentioned the name of any person as having given him that information. As far as I could hear, he did not give the name of the person.

I have the name all right, but I understood that no names must be mentioned in this debate and that is why I did not mention it.

You can mention it. Of course, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle thinks it should not be mentioned, that is all right. Here is, at any rate, an anonymous statement up to this.

If the rules are to be broken and we can give names, we will give them. Do not charge us with quoting anonymous statements when they are not anonymous.

I say up to this anonymous.

Cut it out.

The Deputy will have to cut out interruption.

On a point of procedure, is it the practice in this House not to use the names of people in debate? I understood from the Committee on Procedure that that is the practice. If the Minister and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle say not, we will know where we are.

I have heard names given in this Dáil.

I was present when the Deputy offered to cross the House and give the Minister the name if he chose to have it.

On the point raised by Deputy Boland, it is undesirable, as a general practice, that names should be given, particularly when charges are being made against persons; but that does not necessarily mean that names are always ruled out. As a general rule, however, it is undesirable.

Is it in order to charge a member of this House with using an anonymous document when the Deputy has definitely volunteered to give the name to the Minister?

On a point of explanation. A short time before that, when Deputy Little was speaking, he used names and, if I mistake not, the Chair pointed out that names should not be given. That is why I did not give it.

I understood that if charges were brought against persons in this House the names of the persons charged should not be given, but that if charges were brought, the names of the persons bringing the charges could be given, and they are frequently given from the Fianna Fáil Benches. That certainly was what I understood. As regards what Deputy Flinn has stated, that Deputy Goulding offered to give the name at the beginning of his speech, I have already stated that I could not catch what Deputy Goulding said at the beginning of his speech. I should very much like to know the name, and he might either give it publicly or privately.

I can give the name.

I take it the Deputy has undertaken to give the name of the person making the charge to the Minister.

What is this charge? It is that in the year 1926 somebody was in a Gárda barracks and overheard a conversation between two Guards; that the Guards indulged in the most extraordinary conversation in the presence of this person. I do not know how this person got into the barrack. That, at any rate, could be told to us.

The person was in an official position in the barrack. He was a paid employee either of the Government or of the local Guards.

In the presence of this person the Guards, in 1926, are supposed to have had this extraordinary conversation, and to have actually stated to each other how they had been guilty of crimes the night before. That impossible, incredible, ridiculous story is brought up three years afterwards in the Dáil. Three years afterwards Deputy Goulding gets a hold of it and produces that, on its face, absolutely incredible story: that in the presence of some paid person—I suppose the cleaner of the barrack or something of that kind; I do not know whom else it could apply to— the Guards were supposed to say to each other that they committed crimes the night before, how they fired into a house and all that. Does any sane person think that a story like that, three years old, brought up now, is of the slightest weight or credence? Not only that, but we have again the Newport case.

You have it still, too.

We have had it again and again in this House. It has been debated half-a-dozen times. Perhaps it is no harm debating it again.

And still in the Courts!

Does the Minister stand over their action in the Newport case, when they terrorised the people?

Unless I am entirely misinformed, and I do not think I am—in fact, I know I am not——

Are the Guards, then, accepting the decision of the Court in the matter, or is there any appeal being taken?

Not that I know of.

Is the case still before the Courts?

The appeal by the Guards is.

The Minister is only carrying out the usual practice of the Front Bench, interfering in cases before they are tried.

If the matter is still before the Courts it is a matter that obviously ought not to be dealt with by the Minister or anybody else.

I shall deal with the two cases which are undoubtedly finished. There were three cases in all, and I thought the other was finished also. I shall deal with the two other cases then. The first is the case of Caplis against the Guards; that was a case of assault, and it was dismissed.

On that point, before the Minister proceeds to deal with it, would he say if any comments that he has to make on the two cases which he says are finished would have any bearing upon cases still before the Courts, because if so they should not be dealt with.

It was I made the reference to this case, and I did so merely to indicate the difficulty persons assaulted by the Guards had in getting justice. I pointed out this assault was alleged to have been committed on Christmas Eve, 1927, and the case is still on appeal before the Courts. There were a number of appeals, and one case is now before the Courts for the fourth time. I was merely referring to the matter to indicate that persons taking action against the Guards were in for long legal proceedings, knowing their opponents were financed by the State.

The second case has no bearing on the third. Deputies have stated very definitely and specifically that an appeal has been taken in the third case, and I presume that Deputy Lemass is not making his statement without knowing it.

It is possible the appeal may have been heard in the last few days, but an appeal was taken upon the decision of the Attorney-General.

I shall take the one that is finished— Gleeson against Superintendent McCabe and Sergeant Doyle. That was an action for damaging the door of a house. There was a decree for £5 damage given by Judge Sealy. That was appealed against, in the ordinary way, to Dublin. There was no dispute as to the facts. But there was in that case a very real question of law at issue. The question was this: The door was broken in, in searching for arms. The Superintendent was engaged in the search. He could have, on his own written order, searched the house, and was entitled to break open the door on his own written order. He did not go through the formality of writing out an order. He simply went there without his own written order. If he had written it five minutes before it would be all right, but he did not do so. He went there in search of firearms.

May I correct the Minister——

Order! Deputies have been allowed to make their speeches without interruption and the Minister ought to be allowed to reply and to state the position from his own point of view without interruption.

I want to put the Minister right on a question of fact. The evidence was that the Guards, under the influence of drink, fired shots at the barrack and, on the allegation that the barrack was attacked, proceeded to break down the door of the house. Action could only be taken for breaking down the door of the house. The serious part of the case is not that, but the bogus attack on the barrack.

The Deputy cannot make another speech.

The statement that there was an attack made on the barrack by the Guards is absolutely absurd. It is said that the sergeant and his men fired at the barrack in which were his own wife and children. Does anyone believe that?

What were the findings?

That question was not suggested and did not come up for issue in any way in the case to which Deputies referred. As I said, on this breaking in of the door, it was held on appeal that the Superintendent was not, in law, entitled to break open this door, because he had not written out for himself his warrant. It was a very small point and a technical point, but the courts have held it and we must take that to be the law. There was no dispute as to the facts. It was upon that ground that the case was appealed, and it went to only one appeal. That was the only case that that man Gleeson had, just as Caplis had only one case.

What was the result of the appeal?

The result was that it was held on appeal that the Superintendent, in not having his own written authority, acted illegally. It was held that through a technical mistake made by the Superintendent—a mistake that anyone could have fallen into—he could have written out his authority to search, but that he considered unnecessary because he was there in person acting himself. I think that was a mistake that the Superintendent might easily have fallen into.

In his sober senses, he would not make it.

The Deputy may utilise his position in this House to make attacks upon the Superintendent, and say that he was not sober. The Deputy can do that if he considers it fair, and if he considers it honourable, and if he considers it worthy of a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The statement was made on oath in court and believed by the jury. That was the whole case.

That the Superintendent was under the influence of drink? That is not so, so far as I have seen the reports of the case.

You have only dealt with one case.

I have dealt with two cases. The Deputy's arithmetic is very bad. One and one make two, and I hope the Deputy will bear that little bit of information in mind, because he does not seem to know it up to this. I have already replied, in the absence of Deputy O'Connell, in connection with the matter he raised, but as he is here now I will take this opportunity of again informing him, because he seems to have been misinformed, on the organisation of the Gárda force. Deputy O'Connell talked of something which he called the C.I.D. There is no such force in this country as the C.I.D. There is one body of Guards only. There is the uniformed force and there is the Detective Branch, which do not wear uniform.

They are the same body, the same force and under the same control. The officers are uniformed officers, and it is to them that the detective branch is responsible. They have control of the detective branch; over them, of course, is the same headquarters staff and the same commission. Some of them specialise in one class of work, others of them specialise in another class of work, but they are the identical body under identical control. There is no difference between them, and it is as much the duty of uniformed men to detect all sorts of crime as it is the duty of plain clothes men. Uniformed men must use their abilities to detect crime, and a class of crime they are not specialised in they are not sent out specially to investigate. If they have any possible opportunities of checking crime, of arresting when crime is done, it is as much their duty to do so as it is the duty of any member of the plain clothes forces. They are the same united body, transferable one from the other. That is to say, a uniformed man may be moved into the plain clothes force, the detective branch, or a detective may be moved into the uniformed branch, according as the peculiar abilities of the man make him suited for one branch more than the other. Deputy O'Connell fell in with the suggestion which Deputy Lemass made, that men who are in the Guards and were prominent during the civil war should not be continued in the detective branch of the Guards. I cannot really follow Deputy O'Connell's reasoning in that. These men proved themselves to be really the best stuff in the State. They were men who saved this State when it was attacked, who built up this State, and helped to carry the State out of real danger into the position of almost perfect security we have at the present day, and those are men who should not be slighted, who should not be turned down at a time when their abilities and energies are still required. Those men helped to save the State, and those men, in the position in which they now are, are doing fine work to preserve the State; they are thoroughly well suited in ability and in knowledge to the positions which they hold, and they are doing their work in those positions admirably. That, I think, was one of the main things which was troubling Deputy O'Connell. Were they there because of their abilities or not? They are there because they do their work thoroughly, and they are the right type of men to carry on the duties which they are now discharging.

There is another suggestion made by Deputy Lemass, that the Ministry of Justice should be an external Ministry. I wonder if Deputy Lemass regards this House as a serious House, if he regards the Oireachtas as the real ruling authority in this country to be taken seriously, if he thinks Irish public life is to be taken seriously, or whether he takes the whole thing as a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan opera business when he makes a suggestion that the Minister for Justice should be an external Minister, that is to say, that in performing the most important duty which any State can have, the preservation of order, which is the first duty of every civilised Government, the Executive Council are not to have any voice; the Minister responsible for the preservation of order is not to be a member of the Executive Council. He is to be an external Minister. The Government for the time being is not to have anything to do with the preservation of order. Some individual, an external Minister, is to have it, responsible only to the Dáil, the Executive not having a word to say, and Deputy Lemass puts that forward, if you please, as a serious proposition. Deputy Lemass shows his real gift for statesmanship when he puts forward a proposition so grotesque as that.

I will admit the Minister has made a better case for it than I did.

I may make a better case for it than Deputy Lemass made because I am perfectly certain that it is past the wit of man to make a worse case than the Deputy did.

Take this Department of Justice. Take the Guards and the work they are doing. They are doing the most important work in the State. Nobody can question that. They are preserving order in this State. They are preserving civilisation in this State— that is in danger if the Guards are not here to preserve it. What would one expect from the Party opposite, from any Party with any sense of responsibility or duty to themselves, their constituents or their country, except that, whole-heartedly, they would fling themselves behind that force in preserving law? They would not be under the suspicion even of being opposed to the preservation of law and peace. That is what one would expect from any Party in any civilised state. What do we get here? We get the tentative offer of Deputy Lemass: if you do something then we will help you in suppressing ordinary crime, but in no circumstances will we help you in carrying out your efforts to preserve this State. I cannot quote the Deputy's words, because I have not seen the official report of this particular debate yet. I do not know whether it is out or not.

Yes, it is here; I can send you over a copy.

The Deputy, if he looks through it, will find his own words there all right, and will find that his words are precisely the words I am attributing to him. Does the Deputy now say that he and his Party are willing to fling themselves whole-heartedly behind the Guards in the prevention of every single class of crime in this country? If he does, then he will have made a very big step forward and will have added enormously to the reputation of his Party in the eyes of all persons who have the interest of this country at heart.

I understand that Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly and Deputy Boland desire to make personal explanations.

I do not want to make any statement worth while. I did not hear the statement that the Minister for Justice read out giving an account of an interview between a Chief Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, Deputy Boland and myself. I was not here. Therefore, I do not wish to comment on it, but I have heard that the Minister, when he was giving the grounds for the interview quoted my words from the official report. I want to make a personal explanation with regard to one sentence in that report. I said I know these men. The men I had in mind were the gentlemen opposite, one the Vice-President of the Executive Council and the other the Minister for Defence. I did not make that as clear as it ought to have been made in the official report, but at the time I made a gesture by pointing to the men opposite.

I take it when one account of the interview has been published that I am entitled to give my version of it, as complete a statement of it as I can possibly' give. I was not present when the interview with Deputy O'Kelly began. After about five minutes I came on the scene. I said I was glad to see that they were still active in the direction of finding the people who had murdered the late Minister for Justice and that I thought I would be able to establish a prima facie case against the political section of the C.I.D. I did not say at any time that I knew who did it. Neither did I say that Neligan knows, but I said it is believed that Neligan knows and that I believed it and still believe it. I must say that most of the report that was read out by the Minister was correct. There was one word used by the Superintendent which is attributed to me. I am sure he will not deny that he used it. I proceeded to establish the case. I said it was well known that the late Minister had taken very definite and drastic action against certain people who had disgraced the Army. This is not in the report. He did not stop at the Minister. He went right down the ranks. Everybody knew he was a man who kept his word. He did what he said he would do. It was at this stage that the smaller of the two officers said “Yes, he was a ruthless man.” I am absolutely certain of that. I consulted Deputy O'Kelly on the matter. I believe it was the smaller of the two who used the word. His name is Brennan.

It does not occur in this report at all.

Mr. Boland

I took a note of it.

You read it out.

It does not say he was a ruthless man. The report reads:

"Mr. Boland, continuing, said that the late Minister had been ruthless in dealing with certain members of the Army who were no ornament to the Army. He mentioned this as an instance to show the late Minister's strength in dealing with either the Army or the Police."

Mr. Boland

He supplied the word "ruthless"; I never used it. I said it was common knowledge. I quoted a phrase of the Minister that I had knowledge, without strictly legal proof, that a certain situation existed, due to these Waterford beatings on the Friday before the Minister was killed. That was common knowledge. I asked him was it not so. He did not deny it. Neither the Minister nor anyone else denied my statement of the 14th March till tonight. Then when he was challenged he did not say he was denying it of his own knowledge; he said he was referring to the files of his Department. When I was speaking of this evidence the Minister or nobody else denied the statement I made on 14th March, that such a position did exist in the Police Force, that the heads of the Police Force were about to be dealt with in the same way as the heads of the Army had been dealt with by the same gentleman. I I went a bit further, and this is coming down to an individual. I said it is rather hard on one particular man. He said that he was sent back on that fatal morning. There was no one there to contradict him. I said I was going to supply some motive for the crime on the part of these people, and that it would be well worth those gentlemen's while to investigate it. I said also that had a similar situation existed with regard to any civilians they would have been arrested and put through the third degree, just as the Republican people who had been arrested had been put through it, those who were taken in the raids. Anyone who has ever had the misfortune to get into these people's hands knows all about it. I asked him could he say if they had been to those people. The man who did all the talking, the smaller of the two, said he could assure me that they had investigated this thing fully; that they had examined amongst others ex-Guards.

Talking about that, the Minister wanted to know whether, if Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly himself were making inquiries, he would be so simple as to expect people to say "Yes" when asked if he murdered the late Minister. Was the Minister so simple as to expect ex-Guards to say "Yes"? I had no suspicion whatever about ex-Guards, and I made no suggestion that any ex-Guards had anything to do with it. What I said was that the conduct of these people who had declined to be ex-Guards and who were determined to remain in the Police Force should be investigated.

When I had finished I said to the police officer I think I have made a pretty good case from the point of view of motive. This is almost verbatim, as far as a man's memory can go, and they were relying on memory too. I said it was not a question of ex-Guards at all, that they were people who were still in the force and who were determined to remain in it. I asked: "Is not that a pretty good prima facie case from the point of view of motive?” The Minister does not think so. If there was half of that against any civilians I tell you they would have been tried. He admitted there was, but he said: “Motive is not the thing; you have got to bring the people on the scene.” I said I am not in charge of the Police Force, but if I were I certainly would have investigated the movements of these people on that particular morning. I would have started with the gentleman who said he was sent back. I would have followed up that gentleman. I made that case just to show these men that, in my opinion, there was a prima facie case against this particular section of the Guards. I said that I established definite motive. There was no contradiction of the statement I made, that this situation existed in the Police Force until to-day. Therefore, I presume that I was entitled still to believe that such a situation did exist. I think any fair-minded man will admit that. That is as far as I went as to the motive that might exist in this section of the Police Force. I went further to show why there should be no motive amongst Republicans, why no Republican should wish for the murder of the late Minister.

I said—this is not stated in the interview, but I am sure these gentlemen will not deny it—that Republicans were very pleased with the action the late Minister for Justice took in ridding the Army of the people who committed some of the worst crimes, and against whom we certainly had the biggest grievance; that any objection or any grievances that we had against the late Minister for Justice were due only to his talk, the talk he used both in this House and outside it; that we were quite satisfied with that, because we always got an opportunity of meeting him with the same weapons; that is, talking against him, and that we were quite prepared to deal with that. I asked these people why should we, or anyone on our behalf or any Republican, wish to kill a man who had rid the Army of the people who had been our greatest enemies——

Hear, hear. A speech from the dock.

Mr. Boland

I am repeating what I said. Deputy O'Sullivan is one of the people who were kicked out of the Army.

I said it was a speech from the dock.

It was not kicked out he was but swept out.

The Deputy must confine himself to what happened at the interview.

Mr. Boland

It was not a question of a simple plea being sufficient with us. I showed that there was an absence of any motive; that no motive had yet been shown by anyone as to why any Republican should do it, but I supplied the motive on the other side. The only thing missing was that I could not put these men on the scene. How could I do it? I told them I was quite prepared to help them and they will admit that. As far as I can see the position these gentlemen are officials and there was enough put into the report of the interview to make the Minister's case. It probably was edited. I am not going to deny that these officers said that they knew where these people were on that particular morning, but I do not recollect that. They may have said it. I will not deny that they said that, but I do not recollect their having said it. I do say this much that I did say that I would feel very happy to be convinced that these people whom I suspected and whom a good many others suspected, had nothing to do with it. Everyone on this side would certainly feel very happy at that. I am not going to comment on the rest of the Minister's speech. I would like another opportunity of doing that. That is my recollection about the interview.

On a point of order, the Deputy who has just spoken has used a word about me. He has made a statement that is not true. I do not mind it being made on public platforms outside for election purposes, where I can answer it. But having made it here, I take the first opportunity to ask him to withdraw it. I was not kicked out of the Army. The late Minister for Justice did not ask me to resign my Commission from the Army. I resigned my Commission of my own act. The resignation of my appointment had nothing to do with the internal affairs in the Army. I raise the matter so that the words used by the Deputy should be withdrawn. I want the statement he has made withdrawn.

Mr. Boland

If what the Deputy says is a fact well and good. I was only an ordinary outsider at the time, and I did not know exactly whether he was kicked out or asked to resign. All I know is that the whole proceedings at that time are on the records of this House, and if the Deputy states now that he was not kicked out or was not asked to resign——

Deputy Boland has no right to add insult to injury.

Mr. Boland

I am not doing any such thing.

Mr. Sheehy

That is uncalled for.

Mr. Boland

I should not have said kicked out, because I suppose the boot was not used——

Is Deputy Boland accepting the statement made by Deputy O'Sullivan?

Mr. Boland

I suppose I have got to accept it.

I must insist on my rights that the Deputy withdraw the statement he has made.

Get the records.

Mr. Boland

As to your ruling, sir, have I to withdraw it?

It is not a question of Deputy Boland accepting the statement made by Deputy O'Sullivan. It is a question of withdrawing the statement he has made about Deputy O'Sullivan.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Boland is not going to be rushed off his feet by anybody. I am going to take this matter very coolly.

I wish that all Deputies would take the matter very coolly. As Deputy Boland is aware, it is the practice in this House, if a Deputy denies the accuracy of a statement attributed to him, that the Deputy who makes the statement withdraws it in the usual and proper way.

Mr. Boland

If, subsequent to this, I find that the records of the House are otherwise, what is my position?

The Deputy must accept the statement of another Deputy.

Mr. Boland

Very well. In view of the fact that it is the custom of the House, I fully and freely withdraw. But then, as regards my point with reference to the debates——

It is a very objectionable form of withdrawal.

Perhaps I will be allowed to explain——

Mr. Boland

Is this on a point of order?

Will the Deputy allow me to deal with this matter?

Mr. Boland

I have not been allowed to make a speech and, if the Minister for Agriculture is allowed to make a speech, I will claim that right, too.

I was about to ask the Minister what was the point he desired to explain. Deputy Boland insisted on getting up. The Deputy ought to give me credit for being able to understand what the Minister desires to say.

Mr. Boland

I am sorry.

Mr. Hogan

I have never used the late Minister for Justice's name in this House, because I have too much respect for his memory.

Perhaps the Minister will allow me. This Vote has been fully discussed. The Minister for Justice was called upon to conclude the debate, and he did conclude. Deputy Boland was allowed by the Chair, in view of the statement made by the Minister for Justice as regards a certain interview, to give a personal explanation. There cannot be any further debate on this matter at this stage. The question must now be put, and the Minister cannot make any contribution except by way of a point of order or a personal explanation.

Mr. Hogan

I bow to your ruling. I was merely going to ask a question. I know I have no status. I know I have absolutely no status, good, bad or indifferent. I came into the House and I did not know what was on. I heard Deputy Boland make some statements, and I only wanted to explain some matters.

I am sorry I cannot allow the Minister to explain.

Mr. Hogan

What I was about to ask was would you allow me, in view of the importance of the issue, understanding my position in this matter, and having listened to what Deputy Boland had to say, and not being clear on that point, to ask the Deputy two or three questions?

Mr. Boland

Do please allow him.

I want to make this clear: I have stated what the position is. Deputy Boland was allowed to make a personal statement. No other statement and no speech would be in order once the Minister had concluded. The Chair must then proceed to put the question. I cannot now allow the Minister to comment in any way at this stage on the statement made by Deputy Boland. If I were to do that I would have to allow other Deputies to put questions to the Minister.

We would very much like to do that.

I must, therefore, put the question.

Mr. Hogan

I will not comment on Deputy Boland's speech. I only want to ask him a question.

Mr. Boland

Do allow him.

Perhaps Deputy Boland will allow me to deal with the business in my own way.

Mr. Hogan

In your discretion you allowed Deputy Boland to make a statement on a very serious issue. I ask you, in your discretion, to allow me to clear up some very important points which he made. If you rule against me, that is all there is to it.

My position is that I have no discretion in the matter. I have discretion to allow a Deputy to make a personal explanation, but when the Minister for Justice has concluded I have no discretion, ordinarily speaking, to allow another speech to be made on the matter.

On a point of order, perhaps I will be able to help you.

Mr. Hogan

I do not want the Deputy's help.

I am the only man who can. On a point of order, I submit that the question before the House now is that the Vote be referred back for re-examination. When that question has been settled in the Division Lobbies the Minister will have an opportunity of dealing with this matter on the motion that the Vote be rejected.

When that arises I will rule on it.

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 69.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Aird, William.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and declared carried.

Vote No. 32—Gárda Síochána. Motion for a sum not exceeding £1,001,308.

On a point of order. I do not think that the motion that Vote No. 31 be passed was put to the House. The motion which has been decided by the House was that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. That is a very different matter. I am submitting this as a point of order, a point that may be considered to be already decided, but I am raising it in order that we may be perfectly clear. One was a Vote for money, and the suggestion behind the proposal to refer it back for reconsideration was precisely that it should be reconsidered. In other words, it was a matter which might be reconsidered in view of the debate which has taken place—a motion which the Government could accept.

Would the Deputy come to the point of order?

Yes, sir. My point of order is that we are entitled now to discuss a motion which the Government could not accept, that is to say, that this whole Vote should be rejected. That point of order was put to you the other day by Deputy Anthony, and it was ruled by you that Deputy Anthony had the right to speak upon such a motion. It was by you stated that that right had never been denied, and that it need not be asserted. That right I now claim to speak upon the motion that this Vote be rejected. I am claiming that right under Standing Orders and under your ruling.

When I had announced the decision on the motion moved by Deputy Ruttledge after the Division, I put the original motion, which was the Estimate—a motion for a sum not exceeding £25,869.

We did not get that.

Perhaps the Deputy would allow me for a moment. I put that quite clearly to the House.

We did not hear it.

I waited. No Deputy rose to speak on it——

I beg your pardon, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, I rose to speak on it.

Perhaps I should say that I did not see any Deputy rise. If the Deputy rose I did not see him.

Deputy Corry was on his feet.

Deputy Flinn must remain in his seat while I am on my feet. I then stated, having paused, and not having seen any Deputy on his feet, that the motion was agreed. To that no exception was taken, and I then called Vote No. 32—Gárda Síochána, and I read out the figure for it, and until Deputy Flinn got on his feet on this point of order nobody, as far as I could see, got up. If Deputy Corry did rise, I did not see him. I put the question in the ordinary way as it is always put, and when no exception was taken to it I declared it agreed. That is the position. That has been decided, and in the circumstances it cannot now be raised.

I submit that I rose to my feet twice, but I sat down in deference to the Minister for Agriculture, whom I also saw rising. I thought he rose on account of what occurred a few moments ago, that he had some special explanation to give, and I sat down. But I solemnly say that I did not hear you either put the motion or say that it was agreed to. I stated earlier in the debate that if the Minister for Justice was not prepared to state definitely, when he was replying, that he intended to change the policy of the Department, I proposed dealing with the matter very clearly on the motion to pass the Vote. I was giving way to the Minister for Agriculture——

On a point of order. Has the Chair decided what is before the House now, or is the Deputy to make a speech?

I allowed Deputy Corry to make a statement because I understood from him that he was on his feet. I did not see him. I may say that I did not see the Minister for Agriculture either if he did get up. But in any case, the position is that the motion was put in the ordinary way from the Chair. The Chair gave its decision on it in the ordinary way, and it has now been decided and it cannot be re-opened. The matter now before the House is Vote No. 32.

I would like to ask you if you heard anyone say that it was agreed to?

Deputy Corry has stated that he gave way to the Minister for Agriculture. You say that you did not see any Deputy rising. Would the Minister for Agriculture now say—it would probably settle the matter—that he had intended to speak and that Deputy Corry is right in saying that he did give way to him?

That has nothing whatever to do with the matter. The matter has been decided.

I rise to move the adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance.

The Minister for Finance.

Top
Share