I gave notice to-day that I would raise the subject matter of the following Question on the adjournment:—
To ask the President if he will state (1) if reports have been received by him or if he has, otherwise, reason to believe that the landing of arms on the coast of the Saorstát, or their transfer across the land frontier, has been successfully attempted or is likely to be attempted; (2) if instructions (whether of a special or general nature) regarding attempts to bring arms into the Saorstát have been given by him direct, or through the Ministers more particularly concerned, either to the Gárda or the Army; (3) if any steps have been taken to prevent arms destined for associations in this country acting without the authority of the State leaving foreign countries, or to effect their seizure before being landed here; and (4) if any requests for collaboration in the matters of prevention or seizure have been made to any other Government, or if any offer of collaboration has been made by any other Government and, if so, how such requests and offers have been received.
What was put up to me as a reply was this:
No information has reached me that any landing of arms on the coast of the Saorstát or any transfer of arms across the land frontier has taken place or been attempted. In fact, the reports received by the Government are to the effect that there has been no such landing or transfer. With regard to parts (2), (3) and (4) of the question I can only state that in view of the representations received the Government has taken all the precautions that would be warranted if those representations were well founded.
I asked that Question of the President and I direct attention to the fact that it referred, not merely to something attempted, but something likely to be attempted, and the reply was that he knew of no such likely attempt. I then directed his attention to that part of the Question which referred to requests for collaboration, or if offers of collaboration had been received, and to that, I think I got no answer at all. I then asked in the second part of the Question, if instructions, regarding attempts to bring arms into the Saorstát, had been given by him, either to the Gárda or the Army. Three times I asked very much the same question—and three times, all the President could be brought to say was that all the precautions that would be warranted had been taken. I asked precisely on that if the full force of the law was going to be brought to bear on people attempting to land arms. Again, the President was evasive, and took refuge in the phrase that all the precautions warranted have been taken.
Before I put the gist of this Question in another form I want to call attention to the peculiar phrase used in the third sentence of the reply: "With regard to parts (2), (3) and (4) of the question I can only state that in view of the representations received the Government has taken all the precautions that would be warranted if those representations were well founded." If anyone can discover what that means I would like to offer a prize. "In view of the representations," what were the representations? We do not know, but we are told, "the Government has taken all the precautions." Note this for straight speaking, for good English and proper appreciation of Parliamentary procedure—Parliamentary Question and Reply—"The Government has taken all the precautions that would be warranted if these representations" whatever they may be—"were well founded." The idea of a Parliamentary Question is to get information and the general idea of a Parliamentary reply is to give information. There has been a complete failure to appreciate either what the function of a Parliamentary Question was, or of the duty in regard to a Parliamentary reply.
I referred earlier to-day to public anxiety in this matter. That was derided by the President. There is considerable public anxiety. It is not going to be allayed by a certain camouflaged statement given by way of reply to-day. There is considerable activity off the coast of this country for some two or three weeks. The statement appeared in the Press that destroyers belonging to another country had put into certain ports in this country. There were certain statements made backed up by Deputies that a boat had, in fact, been seized and searched and there have been many rumours of success in the way of landing of arms. There has not been a word from the Government as to whether or not there was an attempt made to prevent that, or whether an attempt was successfully brought off to bring in arms. We know that there are arms in the country—whether they are newly imported or not I do not know—but two incidents during Congress Week showed distinctly that they are in the country, and they are in the hands of people determined to use them against the people and against private property rights. I have no information that any action was taken by the Government in regard to these incidents. As far as I can see to-day there is not going to be even a clear declaration from the Government that the law will be enforced with the utmost rigour against individuals, no matter what guise of patriotism hides them, if they attempt to bring in arms without lawful authority. When a question of this sort is raised, even if it were on the merest rumour it was founded, and that there was not the substantial backing of a Deputy, who stated that a boat had been searched for arms— and apparently searched with authority—if there is anything so definite as that a responsible Government would have welcomed the opportunity of even a rumour being brought to their notice. It would give them the opportunity to say that, if such a thing were well founded, or if, hereafter, any such attempt were made, they would deal with it and deal with it according to the law. If they do not like the law as it is at present, they could tell us that they are going to change the law. If their mentality with regard to the landing of arms is not in accord with what the law is at the moment, they ought either to change their mentality or change the law. We had no statement that the law was going to be enforced. There was a running away from the responsibility of enforcing the law—a hiding behind the phrase: "In view of the representations received, the Government has taken all the precautions that would be warranted if those representations were well founded." Is that the answer of an honest man facing honestly up to the question put to him? I repeat that question: is that the answer of an honest man facing honestly up to the question put to him?
