Let me quote another case. This is a quotation from the daily Press of March 28th, 1933:
"‘When I capture a man again I will try him myself and have none of this hullabaloo about it.' These were the words of James McDonald, a young farmer, of Newport at Longford, when Mr. Kenny, D.J., sent for trial in custody to the Circuit Court, Charles Hussey, Michael Dowler and William Ganly, on charges of conspiracy and unlawfully assembly."
Here is his story:
"On March 20th he was awakened by noise at his gate and knocking at his door and a voice calling for assistance for a motor car stuck on the road. Hearing whispering outside, his suspicions were aroused and he loaded a shot-gun and sent his brother out first. He heard a shout, ‘hands up,' and he then rushed out with his gun. He heard men running away and followed them in his bare feet and fired three shots after them. He fired at the height of a man and loaded as he ran. Returning to the house he put on his boots and gave chase on a cycle, carrying his loaded gun. He came up behind a man carrying a rifle. The man was travelling at the rate of between a jog and a walk and did not hear witness until he had said ‘drop it.'‘He dropped the rifle,' added the witness. ‘I kept him covered with my gun while I slung his rifle on my shoulder, got on my bicycle and ordered him to run on, which he did.' He recognised one of the prisoners (pointing out William Ganly), and ran him on before him and gave him to Sergeant Clogher at Abbeyshrule Barracks."
Here is his comment on it:
"‘The poor little devil was frightened,' added the witness, ‘and told me he was Ganly, and that he was one of the men who came to my house to raid me for two revolvers.'"
Another witness was called to give evidence and then the sergeant deposed that Ganly detailed his movements and those of the other three prisoners. Here is a fellow described to be "a poor little devil who ran to the barracks in front of the man who captured him."
"Ganly told him that when they went to McDonald's a shot was fired and he returned the fire. ‘They fired again,' he added, ‘and he (Ganly) ran through the hedge and the others ran along the road.'"
And listen to this:
"Ganly added that the rifle he had belonged to the I.R.A., of which he was a member, and that he had it for three months and used it on parade once a week."
This is the type of man who goes up in a cowardly fashion to a man's door in the night and runs away when a shot is fired and then runs to the police barrack and gives himself up. Guns were not originally given to anybody in the belief that the man who had a gun could always preserve his life. That was never accepted. But this was accepted: that you could make the circumstance of having a gun very hot for that type of fellow—"the poor little devil" who ran away when a shot was fired. These types of fellows know now that, while there is stocktaking on, they are safe, and that if they are caught the Attorney-General will be kind enough to bring them up only on the charge of being in possession of a gun without a licence. Certainly, the majesty of the law has advanced somewhat since the Attorney-General took over office.
There have been innumerable raids in the country in the last year. One particular raid was on what was described as a camping-ground for a certain number of the I.R.A. On that occasion they took over a castle— week-ending on other people's property. The President is not going to look for the guns in the possession of these people because, forsooth, it is not in the public interest that he should do so. But it is in the public interest that people, who applied for arms and only got them on a certificate from a superintendent of police that he was satisfied that they had good reason for having them and, by implication, that they were not going to be a danger to the public and would not be used for unauthorised purposes, are to have their arms taken from them. It is in the public interest to take the arms from these people, but it is not in the public interest to take the arms from the others! Is it any wonder that the phrase is used that the Government is not here but outside the House? Is it any wonder that it is said that the orders are only accepted here and executed here, but that the orders themselves are formulated outside? There are innumerable examples to show that, if they are not actually following the orders of the people outside, their minds, at any rate, work very closely together and seem to work a week after a certain journal indicates that a particular action is desirable.
We have had a recent case of an outrage on a member of the Guards —the riddling of Superintendent Casserley's car in County Louth. That was preceded by a rather interesting little incident. Certain men were arrested by the same superintendent, or, at least, on his orders, and brought into court. They refused to recognise the court, were sentenced, and came to Mountjoy. Some time later they made their appearance again in various towns in County Louth, and the district justice in that county declared that the Government had not released these men contrary to the usual practice, but that their fines had been paid. That drew from these men the retort that, if the fines had been paid, they had not been paid by them. Furthermore, it drew the following interesting letter, signed by Laurence Grogan, of Drogheda, on the 8th July of this year. Here are the full facts of the case, according to him:—
"On May 2nd last we were summoned to attend Drogheda District Court on May 19 on the charge of posting up the Army Council's appeal for recruits for the Irish Republican Army. We did not attend the court and, in our absence, we were fined 5/- each, or in default seven days in Mountjoy. Thomas Grogan, who was described as the ‘ringleader' by Supt. Casserley, was fined an additional 5/- in the ‘malicious damage' charge, and 1/- for ‘assaulting' the superintendent, or 14 days in default. The justice, Mr. Goff, ordered the fines to be paid within one week.
"We were arrested on June 26 and conveyed to Mountjoy prison, where I demanded political treatment. We refused to give any particulars to the prison staff save that we were Catholics. We were removed to the basement. Next morning we were ordered from our cells for medical inspection. As this inspection necessitated the removal of all our clothing we refused to submit to such a procedure. We were next asked to work in the garden but we refused and were removed to ‘C' Wing.
"While in ‘C' Wing I was visited by Mr. Oscar Traynor, T.D., one of the visiting justices, who adversely commented on our attitude in refusing particulars asked for by the reception clerk. He also stated that our imprisonment was embarrassing the Government, and that the people who created the scenes in Drogheda Court would not have done it two years ago."
That was a stinger!
"I told him that the Government were embarrassing themselves."
This is rather humorous and the President should laugh at it.
"At about 5 p.m. on Tuesday we were told to pack up, and after being handed our property, we were released. We paid no fines; we did not authorise any person to do so on our behalf, nor have we any knowledge of how or by whom they were paid."
Of course, they were a wee bit depressed in their pride and prestige by all this, and so Superintendent Casserley's car had to be riddled the next evening or a few evenings after. One has not heard of any arrests in connection with that, nor of any raids or visits made upon these men, who had just come out and who were in defiance of all the authority of the President and his Guards. No action was taken. One has not heard of any action being taken. Deputy Traynor had visited them in Mountjoy and told them they were embarrassing the Government and would not have done two years previously what they did in Drogheda.