Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Oct 1929

Vol. 32 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Arrests in Dublin.

Mr. Lemass

I decided to raise the matter of Question No. 3 upon the adjournment because I thought it involved matters of very considerable importance in which all Deputies and Parties should be interested. I chose to put down a question on to-day's Order Paper— relating to the treatment given to Mr. William Rowe—on the first day on which the Dáil assembled, not because there are any peculiar circumstances relating to this case but because it is typical of quite a number of cases which have occurred in and around the city of Dublin during the past two months. The facts of this case have been generally admitted by the Minister. On October 3rd of this year this Mr. Rowe, against whom no charge has been formulated and against whom no evidence to sustain any charge can be produced, was arrested at 7 o'clock in the morning by members of the Detective Division of the Civic Guards. He was released at 11 o'clock on the same day and rearrested at 11.30, and he was again released at 3 o'clock. That evening at 7 p.m. when he was walking in Meath Street, Dublin, he noticed that he was being followed by two men. They followed him along Meath Street and Thomas Street. Whether or not the members of the Detective Division who were following him called upon him to halt does not really matter. Mr. Rowe says that he heard no call to halt; the Minister for Justice says that the members of the Detective Division called on him to halt. In any case apparently he did not halt, with the result that the members of the Detective Division drew their revolvers and commenced firing shots—the Minister says in the air; Mr. Rowe says at him. He was not hit, anyhow.

If a man against whom there is no charge and no evidence to sustain a charge, is arrested twice in the one day by the police and twice released it is quite obvious that there is no particular urgency involved in his arrest for the third time. If the Minister for Justice or the members of the Civic Guard had no other concern except the lives of the ordinary unoffending citizens of Dublin, surely these men should hesitate before firing revolvers in the public street in order that this formality of a third arrest might have been completed. The Minister has stated that he disapproves of the firing of shots. It is about time that he disapproved of the firing of shots.

I have said that this case of Mr. Rowe's is not the only one. There have been quite a number of cases in and around Dublin recently in which members of the Detective Division have been firing off shots without any apparent cause. It will be, no doubt, a matter of considerable amusement, at any rate, to the members of the Detective Division, to know that the Minister disapproves of the conduct. But does the Minister seriously think that they care a rap whether he disapproves or not? Apparently not. It is quite obvious to me that a large number of the members of this force are out of control, and that the Minister for Justice is either unable or unwilling to bring them back under control. I would like him to tell us whether this campaign which they are conducting in Dublin City was planned and ordered by him, or whether members of the Detective Division decided upon it themselves, and put it into operation, and that he is taking upon himself the rather unpleasant task of defending it without having any responsibility for it. If the Minister is responsible for this campaign I want him to tell us what exactly is the object he is driving at, what does he hope to achieve by it? These repeated arrests are continuing day after day. I got a report yesterday of another young man in Dublin, a graduate of the National University——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Are we discussing policy generally or one particular question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep to the matter arising out of his question.

Mr. Lemass

I submit that I am keeping to the question. The arrest of Mr. Rowe was only one of quite a number.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the adjournment the Deputy can only deal with the matter of which he gave notice.

Mr. Lemass

But the matter on which I want additional information from the Minister is why these actions are being taken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot deal with them in a general way on the adjournment. He is confined to the particular matter that arises out of his question.

Mr. Lemass

Very well. I will confine myself to the particular matter that arises out of my question. The campaign that has been conducted against this Mr. Rowe is similar to the campaign conducted against a number of other individuals, and is apparently designed to make it impossible for him in the first instance to get employment. A number of other men are continuously arrested at work. School teachers were arrested while teaching classes; others in different forms of employment have been repeatedly arrested at work, until their employers becoming unwilling, and in many cases unable to continue employing them, dismiss them. Is the object of this campaign against Mr. Rowe and the others merely designed to make it impossible for them to earn a living in this country, or is it designed to break down their self-control and to induce them to take retaliatory action? Personally I am convinced that this campaign, whether it was designed by the Minister for Justice, by the Executive Council, or by individual and irresponsible members of the Civic Guard has for its object the creation of a state of affairs in which Ministers will be able to pose again as strong men battling with lawlessness. But I would like Deputies to realise that if lawlessness does result from the illegal activities which the Civic Guard are responsible for in Dublin, and of which this campaign against Mr. Rowe is but a small example, Deputies who permit these things to happen without protest must bear prime responsibility for them.

In speaking on this matter I feel that words are very largely useless. I feel that it is impossible to get the Minister for Justice to realise the possible consequences of the policy for which he, at any rate, is taking responsibility. We have had ridiculous excuses offered for various illegal activities of the Civic Guards. The excuse which the Minister for Justice has offered for the repeated arrests of Mr. Rowe is equally ridiculous. We are told that he is a member of a gang which has been responsible for many criminal activities. What right has the Minister for Justice to make that statement? Has he one iota of evidence to support it? If he has that evidence surely it is his duty to give a jury an opportunity of investigating it. But he knows that he has not that evidence. He is not merely endeavouring to persecute these individuals but wants to slander them as well. A statement of that kind, made in a public assembly like this, which cannot be supported by evidence, is slander.

I do not know whether the Minister is anxious to inquire into the activities of members of the Detective Division. If he is, surely this case gave him an opportunity. Statements were published in certain weekly papers in Dublin by Mr. Rowe that he believes the firing on the 3rd October was a deliberate attempt to kill him. He says he can identify the men who fired at him. If a man, even a man whom the Minister suspects to be a criminal, makes a statement of that kind, is it not the duty of the police to investigate it? If Deputy Shaw came into the Minister's office tomorrow and said he had been fired at by two men while on the way to the Dáil and could identify the men, would the Minister say that Deputy Shaw, being a member of Cumann na nGaedheal, could only expect to be fired at, or something of that kind? That is a perfect example. Is it merely because Mr. Rowe does not happen to agree with the Minister as to what the political status of this country should be, that no action will be taken in his case, no matter how often men in the pay of the State use revolvers supplied to them by the State to fire at men such as Mr. Rowe?

Will the Minister admit, what a very large number of the public are beginning to believe, that he cannot control members of the Detective Division? Will he say that he has ever at any time attempted to exercise control over members of the Detective Division even when they were engaged in an activity of which he disapproves? He disapproves of their firing shots in public. I would ask Deputies to look at this whole affair from a normal point of view. We have lived through abnormal times in this country and our outlook may be a bit cock-eyed, if I may use that expression. We may see things perhaps not in their true perspective, but, if conditions are as normal as we are constantly told they are by the Minister and his colleagues, is it not an outrageous thing for the Minister to stand here in a legislative assembly and say that he has to disapprove of members of the Civic Guard firing shots in public and firing them for no reason?

If they wanted to arrest Mr. Rowe they had him twice on that day and they let him go. They had no reason to arrest him the third time. Why did they not keep him when they had him first? They let him go and he walks the whole length of Meath Street and Thomas Street —and that is no short distance— and two detectives follow him the whole way. At the end of Meath Street they proceed with their shooting. Mr. Rowe says that he heard no challenge. Was it necessary to give a challenge? What was to prevent the two detectives walking up to Mr. Rowe and arresting him? He was not running; he was walking. They did not want that. It is all part of the campaign to drive these men out of the country or else to drive them into taking the action that I believe the Minister for Justice wants them to take.

I do not think, and I have no hope, that raising this question here this evening is likely to produce any alteration in conditions. I do not believe any such alteration will be effected until we have succeeded in arousing public opinion on this matter so as to demand a cessation. The difficulty in arousing public opinion is this, that the Minister has succeeded in gagging the Press. I do not know how he did it. He may have issued orders or he may have met the editors at a dinner party and suggested to them that, in the interests of law and order, lawless acts by the detectives should not be reported. There have been quite a number of these shootings in and around Dublin during the last month and not a single one of them was reported in the Press. The public do not know what is happening. I am certain many Deputies in this House do not know what is happening. Only those of us who are informed by the victims of the campaign understand exactly what is going on. When we have the whole Press of the country in a conspiracy——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy ought endeavour to keep to the subject-matter under consideration. He is leading to a general question.

Mr. Lemass

—to keep public opinion misinformed, it is very difficult to make a protest. The Minister knows that if the public were informed of the one incident on October 3rd there would be such an outcry against the administration of the Gárda Síochána that he could not possibly continue to remain in control of them; that is, if he is in control of them. I have reason to believe that the great majority of the uniformed police force are anxious and willing to preserve order and respect the law as well as they can; but there is a section which has no respect for law and this is the section now responsible for——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is dealing more with a general than a particular question.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Stick to Billy's case.

Mr. Lemass

It is that section the Minister is afraid to discipline. I want to give him plenty of time to reply and if he gives us as amusing a ten minutes as he did over the Clare case he will be helping to bring the whole administration of his Department into ridicule. If we cannot bring it into contempt we will at least bring it into ridicule. The sooner the public is informed of the fact that there is something wrong with the Department, the sooner will they demand a reorganisation and, if necessary, a change of personnel, in order that the machinery which this Dáil established and for which the people are paying to preserve order and enforce the law in this country will not be used as an agent of lawlessness.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I am glad I am able to agree with one thing that Deputy Lemass said in the very eloquent oration which he has just delivered to the House. He said he took rather a cock-eyed view of the matter under discussion. I entirely agree with the Deputy. I think his whole view is absolutely a cock-eyed view, to use his own expression. The Deputy, through a good deal of his statement, was making the sort of speech which we usually hear on the Gárda Estimates and on other occasions in the House. I do not intend to follow the Deputy through his wanderings. I will just only say this, that the Detective Division of the Gárda and every single member of the Gárda are under complete and effective control and any statement that the Deputy makes to the effect that the Gárda, any portion of the Gárda, or any single individual member of the Gárda is out of control, is entirely without foundation.

To come to the particular question which is now under discussion, I think the Deputy is hardly fair to the House when he seems to suggest —and he did seem to suggest it— that Mr. Rowe is, to his knowledge, a law-abiding citizen, a person who simply holds certain political views and who wishes to advance these views by lawful means. Does Deputy Lemass suggest that to the House? Does he himself know nothing about Mr. Rowe? Is he a complete stranger? Does Deputy Lemass think that Mr. Rowe is not a person who is engaged in criminal activities to upset this State by force of arms? Deputy Lemass was once Minister, I think, for Defence in a certain so-called government. I think I would not be wrong in saying that Mr. Rowe was one of the persons who then served under him to his knowledge and, when Deputy Lemass ceased to hold that position and there was a successor appointed, Mr. Rowe was one of the persons who went away. From that day to this Mr. Rowe has been an active person in what calls itself the Irish Republican Army. What the objects of that Army are everybody knows. The things which that Army has done lately in the City of Dublin everybody knows.

Mr. Rowe is a person who is looked upon, and rightly looked upon, by the Guards as dangerous, and as a person who is engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the State. It is a conspiracy which leads to terrible overt acts. It is necessary that crime should be prevented, and surely now, at any rate, Deputy Lemass will agree that it is better that crime should be prevented than that crime should be perpetrated and that the country should get into a condition of disorder. The Guards saw Mr. Rowe and examined him as a person very likely to have incriminating documents upon him. It is a fact that they did it twice. Then, no doubt, Mr. Rowe thought himself safe for that day. The Guards come along behind him—they saw him in Meath Street—and he begins to run away; they shout to him twice to halt, and he shouts back to them "No," and continues to run. Then one of the Guards fires two shots over Mr. Rowe's head. These are the facts of what happened. I have already stated that to effect an arrest shots should not be fired except in very exceptional circumstances. Of course, the Deputy, as he and those associated with him always do, is prepared to accept every word of Mr. Rowe and persons like him. The Deputy says that Mr. Rowe made a statement. I take it that is the statement that I have seen since I answered the Deputy's question to-day. It is a statement which appeared in "An Phoblacht." I presume that is the statement to which the Deputy refers. I will draw the attention of the House to that statement and see how falsely it is based. It runs as follows:—"At 7 o'clock Billy"— Billy is the way in which this paper refers to Mr. Rowe—"returned for his tea. Two men came towards him in Francis Street. He went on through Thomas Street to Meath Street. Mark you, he was walking"—that is put in very large type—"neither cycling nor running. Two C.I.D. men were walking fifteen yards behind him. He can identify both of them. There was no call to halt. Shots rang out, one to five or seven, in rapid succession. Billy heard the bullets whistle around him. It was a clear and deliberate attempt to murder. Had it succeeded there would be as little chance of convicting the murderers as when young Coughlan was done to death. It would have been said that Billy ambushed the C.I.D. or that he was shot by his comrades."

Now, take this story. Billy is neither running nor cycling. Billy, as they call him, is walking. Fifteen yards behind him are two armed men. They walk after him a considerable distance, and in Meath Street they fire seven shots with the intention of hitting a walking man fifteen yards in front. And they do not even graze him. And the gentleman still continues to walk. What becomes of him then? There the story stops. We hear nothing further. He is left walking with the bullets whizzing round his head. Is that true? Does any Deputy in this House believe that story? Now take the next paragraph "Murdered like Coughlan." Well everybody in this House knows how Coughlan met his death. It was the subject of an inquiry by a Committee set up by this House. It was proved beyond question that Coughlan met his death because he endeavoured to assassinate a man named Harling and that Harling fired back killing him. That has been proved.

If you get the facts of the Coughlan case so extremely distorted as they are distorted in that paper which Deputy Lemass read and in which Mr. Rowe's account is given, how are you to think that this paper is giving anything like a truthful statement with reference to the occurrence? If where a matter has been the subject of judicial investigation this paper can lie as it lies about the death of Coughlan, how can you accept as truthful this other statement? Yet Deputy Lemass appears to accept as Gospel truth every word contained in it. Now just consider for a moment. One story is true. Rowe has been arrested twice; he is running. Why is he running? He is running, obviously, because he had on that occasion something in his possession. Is not that the conclusion which most persons would draw? The Guards pursue him and they cannot catch him. One of them fires twice. Do you think if Rowe's story were true, that if this walking man were fired at five or seven times from fifteen yards behind that he could have been possibly missed? That story does not sound the slightest bit truthful. This is done in Meath Street at 7 o'clock in the evening, and the Guards are supposed to commit murder in a lighted street at 7 o'clock on an October evening; does the Deputy believe that? Surely every single statement that Mr. Rowe has made in that paper rings untrue and surely Deputies opposite must admit that the whole thing is untrue.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 o'clock until 3 o'clock on Thursday.