This promise was given to me long after the American courts decided that we did not owe it. This House decided that we did owe it. I do not think I was a member of the House when the American courts decided that we did not owe it, but it was when I was on the other side of the House that the promise was given. Again I ask why is the Deputy so surprised that we are proposing to do something that he, as a member of the Executive Council, assented to when he was on these benches here? I hope that any Deputies who are listening here will understand that we are doing what the previous Executive Council said they had intended to do. The only thing is that we are still in doubt whether they meant it or not. Our attitude is that these moneys were subscribed for the benefit of the Irish people, to aid them in the struggle—the life and death struggle as it was at the time—and that the individuals who subscribed that money are entitled to get their money back.
Now comes the question as to whether or not it was a gift. What are the conditions under which the money was given? Did the subscribers expect anything back? Was it a gift? I cannot tell what they expected. What I do know is what we promised. We said to them that we could not, of course, guarantee—nobody can guarantee—the complete success of a struggle such as we were engaged in. We did not pretend to be able to guarantee it. Therefore, those who subscribed that money, naturally, did not get the guarantee and did not have the certainty that the person subscribing to a State, which was established and recognised, would have in subscribing to a loan floated by an established and recognised State. They did not have that certainty. I could not have guaranteed what they would get, when they asked what they would get back. This I did guarantee, however, that if the Republic were established and the Irish people achieved the freedom which would enable them to honour debts which were floated in the name of the community as a whole—if they won out to that extent—the subscribers to the loan would be repaid, and repaid not merely with regard to the principal but the interest. I was more conservative on that question of interest than was the Minister for Finance here at home in the internal loan, because I safeguarded the community to this extent, that we would not have a large amount of interest accumulating, perhaps for a considerable period of time, and the interest was to begin to run from a certain date, namely, the date when the British occupation of this country was got rid of. The people then in America gave their money because they wanted primarily. I would say, to help a cause. But we asked it from them and said: "We are not a recognised State; we are floating this loan in order to win our freedom and, if it is won, then we will do certain things." What are we concerned with? Is it whether the people wished or expected to get their money back or not? I say "No." The expectation of getting their money back varied, probably, from individual to individual. Nobody can tell. No doubt, a large number of them would have given it as a free gift if we had asked it on these conditions only; but we did not ask it on these conditions. We went out to get it as a Governmental loan and as a Governmental loan it was floated, and, as a Governmental loan, we are the only people here who have the resources of the community at our disposal to meet these obligations. It is because we recognise that, that we say in the name of the community, or of a large portion of it, the Twenty-Six Counties, that we propose to fulfil their obligations. I am glad, for one, that it should have fallen to my lot, as the person, primarily, who asked for that money in America and who knows best under what conditions it was obtained, to say that again in the name of the Irish people we are able to redeem our promise. It is one of the greatest pleasures of my life to be able to meet all the misrepresentation that was made at that time and to be able, in the name of the community, to pay back that money.
What are the terms upon which we propose to pay it back? A certain portion of the money that was not spent was disputed. I, as trustee, disputed it and, to-day, I have no reason to think that I acted otherwise than rightly in disputing it. We disputed —I, as trustee, disputed—the right of the Free State to get the balance; and the court decided that the balance should be given back, pro rata, to the original subscribers. In this Bill we propose to take credit for the portion that has been given back. In other words, the subscribers have got a certain portion of the money owing to them, and we propose to give the difference between the sum they received from the court and the sum representing the principal and five years' interest at the rate of interest that was specified in this bond. We think that is fair under all the circumstances, and the representatives of the bondholders were prepared to accept it. They considered it would be fair and the proposal in this Bill is to give, for every dollar subscribed, the original dollar back plus 25 cents. as interest, which only covers one-half the period in question. Therefore, I say with regard to two points first, as regards the readiness of this Government to pay it back, I have pointed out that we are only doing what in any case our predecessors said they were prepared to do; and, secondly, in regard to our obligations, I have shown that the money subscribed was given under pledges— whatever may have been the hopes of the individual subscribers that they would get back much or little—that it was given and accepted by us under definite promises, and we are attempting to see that these promises are carried out.
The next suggestion is that it is not a convenient time to pay this money. I do not know what was said before I came into the House. I am only taking up the points raised since I came into the House. One of these points is that it is not a convenient time to pay this money. I do not know, but I think that some people, if they wanted an excuse, could say that it was never a convenient time to pay. I think, as there is an obligation of this sort, which, relatively, is not a huge sum, and which is of tremendous importance to our credit, that it should be paid. A good many of the people who subscribed at that time would be very glad to have it now, because they are not as affluent—a number of them—as they were at that time. Once we have decided that it is to be paid, however, and once the previous Executive had made it clear that they wanted it to be paid, the question for us was that it should be paid as soon as may be. We are merely choosing the present time because the Receivers have finished up their work of returning the balance. There is available in the United States at the present time, I know, an office in which are the full records of the people to whom a certain portion of the money has been paid. With the records that are there available we can start immediately, with the least possible delay, and the least possible inconvenience, and, I would say, with the least possible cost, paying this money. On our assuring the court that we are going to pay this money, we can get possession of these records and be able to discharge the balance of our obligations. We propose to do this once the Receivers are discharged and the records made available for us. As a matter of fact, the Receivers are being discharged now. The records will be available and we propose to distribute this money with all possible speed.
The exchange value of the dollar varies from day to day. A few months ago it would have been more against us than it is to-day. In all probability, in a few months time, when the moneys are actually being paid, the balance of the exchange will not be as severe against us as it is to-day. We cannot settle those things. We are paying off our obligations in the coin in which we received them. The third point, therefore, as to why we are choosing this particular time, must be obvious to Deputies. The giving away was completed; the Receivers were being discharged; the document and records which will enable us to pay the balance of the money are available at this moment, and were not available heretofore. The previous Executive, if they had the mind, could have given the balance to the Receivers, and made some arrangement by which the whole sum could have been paid at once. They did not want to do that. Those gentlemen who suggest now that I have some personal reason for it are simply reading their own hearts and minds, and had a personal reason for not paying before. They are trying to attribute to us the same mean motive as they had themselves.
