Are we still on the point of order?
Committee on Finance. - Dáil Eireann Loans and Funds (Amendment) Bill, 1936—Committee Stage (Resumed).
The point of order was not decided, I think.
I was dealing with the objection that has been raised to amendment No. 1. If I might briefly summarise what was said, it was put to me that amendment No. 1 was out of order on the ground that it is attempting to repeal a statute. I suggest that whatever reason may be given for ruling it out that is not the reason. It does not attempt to repeal a statute, and whether it attempts to do so or not, it does not succeed in doing so, because it leaves the Act of 1933 completely in force for the purposes for which the Act of 1933 was passed, and within the time assigned by that Act. I ask for a ruling that it is not out of order on the ground of repealing a statute, because it certainly does not do that.
I took it, however, from what you said, Sir, that a second objection had emerged, that what is now proposed is against the principle that was accepted on Second Reading. That is not a point I was so well prepared to meet as it was not put to me, but as it is put now there appear to be two things agreed as having been included in the principle (1) the extension of time and (2) the machinery of audit. These two things are mentioned. If the Act of 1933 was not mentioned I think there could be agreement that by bringing a reference to it I was bringing in something outside the scope of the consideration of those who passed the Second Reading but, equally with the mention of the time, and the machinery of audit, there is mentioned the class to whom the Bill applies by reference to the Act of 1933.
If I am allowed to move amendments to the time which, I believe, I am allowed to move, and to the machinery of audit which I have moved, and which have been passed, I cannot see how logically I am forbidden to move amendments to the only third point that occurs in the Bill, namely, the class of people to whom it is to apply.
The Deputy states that his amendment would leave the Act of 1933 in full force. The House agreed that this Bill should apply to the Acts of 1924 and 1933 in regard to the definition of a subscriber. Therefore, to curtail the meaning of subscriber would certainly not leave the Act of 1933 in full force, and is against the decision which the House came to, that this Bill accepts subscriber as defined in the 1933 Act.
Supposing the definition of the class to whom it was to apply was not by way of reference to another Act, but was the phrase "subscriber shall mean," would I be allowed to move an amendment? I suggest, certainly, as I am allowed to move an amendment to the time, by either enlarging or extending it, or an amendment to the machinery by asking to have a new scheme of audit approved. If the reference was to subscribers, not by reference to a definition in another Act, but by a definition contained in this Bill, I suggest that I could clearly move an amendment enlarging or limiting the class. When the House passed the Bill which has three things in it— audit, machinery, time within which application should be made, and the people who may make the application —it is suggested here that I may move to change the audit, that I may move to change the time, but I may not move to change the classes. There is no logic in that.
If the Bill contained a definition of "subscriber"de novo, as it does provisions for audit, the Deputy would have been entitled to submit an amendment to the definition of “subscriber,” but the term “subscriber” is defined in the Act of 1933, and the House agreed that the amending of the date and the audit should apply to the Act of 1933. Therefore, to alter the word “subscriber” is submitting an amendment not to this Act, but to the Act of 1933, and I definitely rule that amendment and amendment No. 5 similarly out of order.
Take me as entering a most vehement protest against any such ruling as being contrary to any ruling previously given and completely illogical.
The Deputy is entitled to disagree, as Deputies very often do, with the rulings of the Chair. The rulings hold until they are upset in the regular manner.
The point I want to make is that it is completely contrary to rulings previously given in the House where definitions by reference to other Acts have been amended after the Second Reading.
It is a matter I do not propose to argue, but I am certain that the Deputy is not speaking by the book. My ruling is quite consistent and in consonance with rulings given in similar cases. That ends the discussion.
I suggest the contrary.
Question proposed:"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
The definition carried into this Bill by reference to the Act of 1933 is an enlarging of the original subscriber, and this was done in a Bill ordinarily known as the Irish Press Bill, and this is the Irish Press Bill, second edition. It has no other purpose than to bolster up a journalistic position which, apparently, is not healthy and needs some sort of buttressing. That was achieved in the Act of 1933 by enlarging the class of people who could make application for the repayment of moneys paid into a particular fund. Originally, when moneys were to be repaid, they were to be repaid only to a subscriber as defined, and the definition of a subscriber was a person who had subscribed or, in case that person had died, his legal personal representatives. Repayment was only to be made to the individual who subscribed, except that person had died, when there should be repayment to the legal personal representatives.
In the 1934 Act that was changed. Power was given then to make repayments of moneys, where the subscription had been made by A, B or C to people who claimed to have a right under or through A, B or C, but not being A, B and C themselves, or in the position that A, B and C were dead. The reason for that was because, previous to the measure being passed, and not having it before them when the other arrangement was made, certain people had assigned, for particular purposes, their rights, whatever they were, in some of these Dáil Bonds. The President of this State had got these into his possession and proposed to use them in a particular way, which was described in the debate which took place the last time, as a dishonest use of State money.
If it was thought that the claim could be substantiated under the law as it stood, there was a very easy way to test it. If the President got such an assignment of these moneys as to enable him to use them under the law in a private way for the buttressing up of the newspaper, he could have gone to the court in one case and fried it out. But he shirked that issue. He decided to have this House, governed by a majority of his Party, pass an Act which would give him, as head of that Party, the power to apply State moneys to a newspaper of his own. That enlargement was carried here, and was in the end carried when you, Sir, ruled out discussion on the Fourth and Fifth Stages, when only one speech had been made, after an all-night sitting at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. That was the attention that the House was allowed to give to this particular matter of what I call a dishonest diversion of public money to a proprietary concern for Party purposes.
Because the President, presumably, had not been vigilant enough to get these moneys thoroughly inside his grip before the last Act was passed, and before the time limit to make an application under the last Act expired, and in order to enable more moneys to be diverted in this particularly odious way, the President has to be given another opportunity to allow himself to get hold of more bonds, and as agent for these people, and on behalf of his newspaper, to make application to have further moneys diverted from the State for his own special personal or Party purposes. That is the only reason for bringing in the definition given to "subscriber" in the Act of 1933.
I should have thought that sufficient odium had been incurred over this whole very nasty business and that whatever the President had got away with—it is a phrase appropriate to loot, and loot is appropriate to this discussion—through his agents, or through the supposed agency matter, was good enough for him. But it comes to the peak point of brazenness to come to the House, running against criticism for the second time, in order to enable the President to get more of these unfortunate people to hand over these bonds in order that he may get diverted to him, for his own personal Party purposes, the moneys subscribed for the State.
They were supposed to be subscribed for a republic and supposed to be paid only when the republic was functioning. I should have thought that one might say: "There may be some subscribers who have not heard either of the Act of 1924 or of the Act of 1933; they have not made application and we will give them a chance to apply." That could be done by saying "subscriber," but "subscriber" as it was limited in the first Act, and that only subscribers themselves were now to make application within the extended time, or, if subscribers were deceased, that application could be made for them by legal personal representatives. That was the purpose I aimed at in the amendment ruled out of order.
I suggest that a Bill containing that, and containing the further provisions about audit and winding up, would be a Bill that this House could pass without any conscientious twinge or feeling that the House again was being used for very obvious and disgusting Party purposes. We are not being asked to do that. We are not being asked to make an enlargement of the time in order to enable subscribers themselves, or, in the case of dead subscribers, their legal personal representatives, to claim the money that belongs to them. Nobody is anxious to make anybody wait until the republic has been six months in existence. Nobody could object to these subscribers, these genuine subscribers, being allowed to get back their own money. In so far as this measure, by a definition, allows again the President to work this odious and dirty trick on the House and on the country of getting into his hands for use in his Party newspaper the funds subscribed for the good of the country generally, I am going to oppose this particular clause.
Question put:"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 35:—
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
|
Beckett, James Walter.Belton, Patrick.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Broderick, William Joseph.Brodrick, Seán.Coburn, James.Cosgrave, William T.Curran, Richard.Davitt, Robert Emmet.Dillon, James M.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Dolan, James Nicholas.Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan. O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond, Bridget Mary. |
NáFagan, Charles.Finlay, John.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Holohan, Richard.Keating, John.Lynch, Finian.McGilligan, Patrick.McGuire, James Ivan.McMenamin, Daniel.Morrisroe, James.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Leary, Daniel. Roddy, Martin.Wall, Nicholas. |
As regards amendment No. 2 to Section 2; as I have informed the Deputy, the amendment introduces a new principle and is, therefore, out of order.
For the purpose of obtaining information, may I take it that it is considered to be improper in this House to introduce not something which contravenes a principle passed on the Second Reading, but something which is subsidiary to it? I understand, and I have always understood, that we would not be allowed to move amendments which ran contrary to the principle that was accepted on Second Reading, but I understood that that was a standard in relation to the principle. There is a new point being introduced now—that some principle which is not phrased even to be contrary to the Second Reading idea must be ruled out.
The second point I want to make is this: I do not know how language can be strained to say that a machinery resolution or a machinery clause can be regarded as a principle. To ask that there should be put before the Dáil a statement of those who have already got money from the State, and in regard to those people in each case to state whether it is the original subscriber or some agent of his, I cannot understand how that can by any stretch of imagination be construed to be a principle.
The Deputy has put some hypothetical questions, which the Chair will not answer. The Chair rules on specific points, and gives a ruling on any amendment submitted. In my opinion this amendment introduces matter which does not arise out of the principles of the Bill as read a Second Time and is therefore out of order.
Before that ruling is given definitely, I should like to say that the principle as I understand it which was passed on Second Reading was to enable an enlargement of time to be made with regard to the application for subscriptions to the Dáil Eireann Loan, and to introduce certain machinery for audit; as part of which machinery for audit I propose to add the laying on the Table of the House of certain information. I have been told that amendments 3 and 4 are in order, although they are proposing to add to what is proposed that the House should also get information in each case as to whether the subscriber or an agent has made application. I also propose to extend that so as to cover subscriptions already paid. How does it come that one is in order as not being an extension of the Second Reading principle, and the other is out of order?
There is provision in this Bill for the audit of the accounts of those funds. Amendments 3 and 4 deal with that audit and, therefore, are in order. I might say incidentally that if the Chair in courtesy notifies certain Deputies beforehand of its attitude towards their amendments it is hardly fair to paraphrase the wording that the Chair used in so notifying Deputies. Regarding amendment No. 2, which asks the Minister to lay before Dáil Eireann within one month after the passing of this Act certain lists, it does not relate to either the audit or the date. I consider that it is not relevant and, therefore, I definitely rule it out.
On a point of explanation. I do not want it to be thought that I introduced any paraphrase. This says: "Amendment 2, which introduces a principle in amending the Bill as read a Second Time, is out of order." That is exactly my phrase. I had my eye on that when I read it. It was no paraphrase.
I was not commenting in particular on what Deputy McGilligan did on this occasion. I refer to the general principle that if the Chair in courtesy writes to Deputies and informs them in advance of its attitude towards amendments, that information should not be debated in the House.
I am not debating it, but I am glad to have an assurance that the word "paraphrase" did not apply to me.
Question proposed:"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
On the second, this is to amend Section 4 of the Act of 1933 by introducing the date of 30th June, 1936, instead of the date of 31st August, 1934. The whole section is that any person or the duly authorised agent of any person who claims to be a subscriber to the External Loans may at any time before that date apply in writing for the redemption of the amount claimed. It further says that no person who has omitted to make an application under the foregoing sub-section for redemption would be entitled to be repaid. In the section the word "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister. That gave power not merely to the original subscribers, or to their personal representatives if the original subscribers were dead, to make application within a certain time, but gave power to any person or duly authorised agent of any such person. We are now asked to extend the time. We have not been told why. We have not been told whether any original subscribers failed to make application within the time and had since made application to the Ministry. We have not been told if it is a matter of the President —again I use the word advisedly— scrounging for more of those assignments to him of moneys previously subscribed to help this country to a certain national position, and now wanting to divert those for the purpose of his Party newspaper. If it is that, surely we should condemn him, at any rate, for his lack of vigilance. Most people are vigilant about money. Most people are particularly vigilant about money that does not belong to them. Why should we give a man an opportunity to mend his hand by getting, for the purpose of his Party newspaper, money which does not belong to him after a date that was originally fixed? If, in fact, the President did not get enough —and enough varies according to the particular stage of the decline of the newspaper—what might have been enough when the Act of 1933 was being passed may now not seem to be enough at all. The appetite grows by what it feeds on, and if we had to help a particularly lame dog over a rather low type of hurdle, then there is now more of this peculiar type of oxygen needed to get it a step forward.
I submit there has to be a case made; whatever case has to be made about the pilfering of public funds for Party propaganda let it be made here. Why did not the President get the money? Were any people recalcitrant? Did any people write to him? Why has the date, the 31st August, 1934, been passed? What is the reason for giving these various agents of the original subscribers time to the 30th June, 1936, to make their applications? If the original subscriber made a case nobody could object. There would be no objection to the making of a case that in the main there is a group of original subscribers who did not know anything about the Act and did not make application. Then there would be some satisfaction in passing this. On account of the absence of an explanation of these things, there is bound to be the suspicion that it was because the President defaulted in getting these moneys into his own fist for the purpose of using them for his Party newspaper. We should object to that. It is bad enough to have to give way with a republican Government in office and to have to veer from the original tone of the bonds which gave a sufficiently good expectation of payment within a reasonable time. We are not surely now so despairing of the declaration of a republic that the people cannot wait another six months to get this payment for those who failed to get it within that time.
Deputy McGilligan does his usual stuff, throwing as much dirt as he can in the hope that some of it will stick. The Minister for Finance explained on the Second Stage of this Bill that it was necessary that those who subscribed during the Black and Tan war and helped this country to free itself should be repaid. Upwards of 15,000 had applied after the date fixed in the Act of 1934. Deputy McGilligan knew that perfectly well. If the Deputy wanted to know the reason for the extension of the time, if he took an intelligent interest in the matter, if he looked up the reasons that were given on the Second Stage for its introduction he would know. Of course, we all know and we are pleased to see that Deputy McGilligan is angry at the success of the Irish Press. When the Act was being introduced and discussed a couple of years ago it was prophesied that the Irish Press would not last another six months. It is still going strong and, thank goodness, the Irish people have a newspaper on which they can rely for news. The Irish people will not be confined to papers that sided with the British against the Irish people. They will not be confined to those papers in order to see what is happening. Of course Deputy McGilligan and those with him would like to see us dependent on those papers still. They would like to see the people absolutely blindfolded in regard both to home affairs and to foreign affairs. But that is not happening now and it is not going to happen.
The people who subscribed originally to the Dáil Eireann External Loan have a right to be repaid. Even the Government that was in office here before the present Government promised to repay them. It did not suit their political purpose at the time to carry out their promises. But we are carrying them out and we are repaying the people who came forward in a time of national stress to help the Irish people at home in their fight. If any of those people abroad thought it right or thought it wise in the interests of Ireland to transfer some of these bonds to the Irish Press they had a perfect right to do so. What is worrying Deputy McGilligan is that a large number of people who were faithful to Ireland in 1931 carried on and supported the President when he was establishing an Irish national newspaper here to continue the fight for Irish freedom. Notwithstanding all the dirt that Deputy McGilligan may throw, the people who subscribed originally are going to get paid and any of them who did not apply within the time limit fixed by the Act of 1934 are going to get an opportunity of applying now within the time fixed in the Bill.
The Minister for Defence said that the previous Government promised to pay. He said they evaded that because it did not suit their political purpose. In making that statement the Minister has spoken an untruth.
Does Deputy Cosgrave say that the previous Government did not promise to repay these moneys?
It certainly promised to pay——
——the subscribers.
The Minister went on to say that we evaded making the payment or that it did not suit us politically to do so. Surely the Minister is drawing on his imagination. He is aware what transpired in connection with this External Loan. He is aware of the fact that proceedings were started in America. He knows the fact that the President of the Executive Council was aware of these proceedings and that these proceedings went on for a number of years.
They finished in 1924.
Assuming that they did, what was the decision of the court?
The Deputy was in office for eight years afterwards.
Assuming that they were finished in 1924, what was the decision of the court?
To repay the money to the subscribers.
When was it to be accomplished?
It is being accomplished now.
The Minister is evading my question. There were certain moneys in America. We will assume for the purpose of argument, that some of that money was X and some of it was Y. X was in America and Y was to be put up here. Is the Minister aware of the fact that in my evidence before the commission held here I stated that we did not want the money and that when we got the money it would be left here and an equivalent sum in proportion to our liabilities would be added to it and that the money would be paid to the subscribers? That offer was not accepted. The moneys had not been entirely distributed before we left office. But assuming that some time had elapsed, we did not get possession of the documents. We did not get them from the court.
Did you try?
I believe proceedings were in course to get possession of them and to get information about them. At all events, it so happened that it suited the Minister and his Party that the moneys had not been distributed, and if there is any advantage in it, it is for his Party the advantage is. We wanted none of that money for our Party, not one penny of it. We undertook to discharge the payment, and would have discharged the payment of the money subscribed had we not been interfered with by the Minister and his Party. The prime mover in that was the present President of the Executive Council. That action of his has cost this State, I suppose £100,000 at the very least. Was it good business? Apparently the Minister and his Party considered it was. But it was not honourable business—not by any means honourable business. The Minister has no right to say that there was any political manoeuvre in the case of the last Executive Council in meeting this liability. They wanted to meet it ten years ago and would have met it were it not for the interference, obstruction and opposition of the Minister and his Party. As I have pointed out, it has cost this State £100,000 and it has dragged our name in the mud. That has been the work of the Minister and his Party, and not our responsibility.
If there is anybody trying to drag the name of this country in the mud over this business it is Deputy Cosgrave's Party. Will the Deputy tell me that the man who buys a Government Bond cannot assign it to another person in discharge of a debt or as a gift? Will the Deputy claim that a person who subscribed £100 to the National Loan cannot transfer that? The Deputy talked about the repudiation of debt. If I buy £10 worth of national bonds, or subscribe £100 to the National Loan, and assign it to the Irish Press or any other organisation, would he repudiate my right to do that? Would he claim he had any right to repudiate the contract he entered into with the original subscriber, and that he was entitled to refuse to repay it? Who is dragging the country into the mud, if not the Deputy and his Party? People who subscribed the money to the original Dáil Eireann Loan are in exactly the same position. Deputy Cosgrave says he agreed at one time to repay that money. Why did he not carry out his promise? What right has he to repudiate any liability on foot of the debts he said he would repay?
If the Currency Commission issued £1 six or seven years ago and someone who held it gave that £1 to the Irish Press is not the Irish Press entitled to claim that £1 from the Currency Commission? The Deputy should think twice before lending his name to the tactics Deputy McGilligan adopts in this matter.
The section we are now discussing has to do with the extension of the date.
Deputy Cosgrave raised the question that the Dáil had a right to repudiate some of the bonds issued to subscribers when presented by the people to whom these subscribers assigned them. If there was any scrounging for money by the Irish Press it was not like the scrounging of the Cumann na nGaedheal to British industries.
As a matter of fact, they are doing that now.
The Chair is in great difficulty in relating this to the second section of the Bill now before us.
Deputy McGilligan was allowed to deal with it.
It is quite in order. I would protest against the limitation of discussion upon this very valuable matter. If there is any argument wanted upon that I am prepared to offer it.
This section is dealing with the extension of the date.
It has to deal with an amendment of Section 4 of the Act of 1933 which states that any person or the duly authorised agent of any person may make application for payment.
They have made application for payment and they are going to get it. I am glad it is annoying the Deputy. He may rail and throw out as much poison as he likes but it will not affect this matter. The Irish Press is going to get it.
The Minister evaded some portion of my observations and put his own construction upon what I said with regard to this matter. Let us be clear. My evidence on these things was given on oath. The Government has that evidence. The undertaking to pay is there or it was there.
Do you stand over it?
Certainly, over what I said.
Then why not pay?
Pay the subscribers. This is another question. Let us understand one another. Much the same case arose before when we were dealing with Dáil Eireann Internal Loan. The Minister can inquire whether assigning was allowed. My recollection is that we disallowed it, unless it was made with the knowledge of the Department, and for very good reason. A man walked in one day to a friend and gave him a bond for £100 which, in 12 months time, was to be worth £140. He said he wanted the money. Just in order to sound the man with regard to what he thought it was worth, the other asked him what it was worth. He said: "I will take £50 for it." Would the Minister stand over a thing like that? Would he stand over an arrangement by which a bond that would be worth £140 in 12 months was transferred for £50? Would the Executive Council stand over that? It would not be fair. This money was borrowed for a particular purpose. It ought to be paid back to those who subscribed it. If a subscriber properly sold his bond for a consideration, and that consideration turned out to have due relation to the bond, it would be a different thing altogether. But if an unfortunate man who finds himself short of money is prepared to transfer a bond worth £140 in 12 months for £10 or £50 or even £90, I would not stand over that. It would not be right. If the Minister wants any comment from me as to what is being done in this case I would say that I am positively ashamed of what has been done about these assignments.
Will the Deputy answer my question? If I subscribed £100 to the National Loan and got no bond at all except that they said they would repay me plus a certain interest for each year, if I wished to sell that £100 worth of National Loan for £10 or £50 or for 10d. or to give it away altogether, would the Deputy say that the person to whom I assigned it would not be entitled to exactly the same rights as I had originally to the repayment of that loan inside a certain number of years and to the interest in the meantime?
I give the same answer to that question as I gave to the other. The former Executive Council would not stand over an assignment unless it was positively proved that the consideration was worth the money. The Minister may say that he has a perfect right to sell that £100 for even 10d. if he likes, but I say that the person offering the 10d. for the £100 is not an honest man.
Would the Deputy repudiate my right to enter into a transaction of that kind?
The courts are there to prevent people being made fools of.
I say in the first place that in regard to a bond for £100, with the backing of the country behind it, no person would have a right to try to discount that £100 for 10d. or £10. It would not be fair to the subscriber in the first instance.
Deputy Cosgrave has not answered my question. Am I not entitled to give away £100 of National Loan if I like? Am I not entitled to assign £100 worth of National Loan? Would the Deputy repudiate my right to do that?
What is the consideration?
For any consideration or no consideration.
How could anyone repudiate it? You have the money market to deal with your National Loan. If you sell it at all, how could 10d. or £10 purchase an Irish bond of £100? There is no comparison at all.
Deputy Cosgrave will not admit that right.
This country's name and word ought to be worth more than 10d. for £100.
The Minister opened by talking about "people throwing dirt on us." The whole object of the Bill is to throw dirty money at the Ministry.
Good, clean money.
Pecunia non olet.
There is nothing wrong with it except that it goes into the Irish Press.
Any money that the Irish Press can get its hands on is good, clean money. Call this Bill the “Irish Press (Prop No. 2) Bill” and it will be all right. Reveal the purpose of it and we shall know where we stand, without this parade of national dignity and national honesty to buttress up a decaying newspaper. That is what we are against. The Minister makes the case that he has the right to assign a £100 bond. Does he want that applied to the facts of the Dáil loan? If so, why put into the measure of 1933 the phrase that a subscriber means not merely a subscriber but any person entitled to hold by or under him and any such subscriber's agent—why put in this phrase unless the Ministry had a fear that the courts might inquire into the way in which the President got hold of these bonds and might decide that it was dishonest and not allow him to get the money? It was because of that that the second extension of the word “subscriber” was made. The Minister may say that he has the right to assign. He has when the transaction takes place between two parties who know the circumstances and are properly advised. If President de Valera goes across to America to cozen and cheat people out of their money—money which they thought at that time was worthless——
The Attorney-General
Is it in order for a Deputy to charge the President, as he has just done, with cheating people.
To cozen and cheat people out of their bonds.
The Attorney-General
I want to know if that is in order?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle rose.
I want to show how these bonds——
The Deputy must desist while I rule. I think the phrase he has used is one which should not be used. It is not permissible to say that any member of the House cheated.
I say the circumstances warrant it but I withdraw if the House thinks the phrase is irregular in its use.
The Attorney-General
Is that a withdrawal?
It is withdrawn, but the transaction stands, and a malodorous transaction it is.
The Attorney-General
Then it is not withdrawn.
It is.
The phrase is withdrawn, but I am going to describe the President's conduct. I cannot use the phrase which has been ruled out of order, but the English language is not without its resources. The President fooled people into parting with their money. What did he do? He went across at a time when nobody expected to get anything on these bonds, and he put up the case that there was great need in this country for a newspaper. He buttressed his arguments by quotations from Professor O'Rahilly, which Professor O'Rahilly never authorised him to use, and from Professor Tierney, which Professor Tierney repudiated as soon as he saw them. By means of all that, the President is enabled to fool people into assigning these bonds to him. If the Ministry believed that these assignments were properly made, they need not have extended the meaning of the word "subscriber." One test case would have decided whether the assignments were properly made or not. The Ministry would not face that issue. They did not want it brought to the courts. They did not want to face the courts on the question whether the President had fooled the subscribers into parting with their money or not. So they evaded the issue by extending the meaning of "subscriber" to any authorised agent or any person claiming by or under such person. If the Minister had any belief in his contention that those people in America had the right to assign, had rightly assigned, and that the transaction was a legal one which the courts would have stood over, there was no necessity to enlarge the meaning of the word "subscriber." The fact that that was done shows what, in their own innermost thoughts, the Ministry felt about the President's action.
One of the Ministers has told us that those people who subscribed did so to help the country to free itself. That is not a real, republican phrase. That is not the sturdy republicanism I should expect from the Minister. One ought not to be ashamed of the phrase in the bond. The bond is payable "six months after the declaration of an Irish republic." There is no nonsense there about getting the country free. The "declaration of an Irish republic" is the phrase that is used. The Minister ought not to be afraid to have these words in his mouth. He has recently helped to jail people for using them. There was a time when he was very fond of the phrase, and he should not run away from it now. He should not be afraid to look forward to—with the Ministry at present in power—the very short period that will elapse before the Irish republic is declared. There is no nonsense in the bond about people parading to free the country. A specific event was to determine the time at which the necessary payment was to be made.
Remember that American case to which Deputy Cosgrave has referred. The President was the instigator of that case, and it was fought by him. It cost the funds that were subscribed by these people £100,000 at least. What was the gist of the argument by the President on that occasion? That the late Government were not the successors of the Dáil under whose auspices this loan was run, and, therefore, had no right to get any of the moneys, and no right to repay them. Nevertheless, the present Government, who are the successors of the Government that were not the inheritors of the republic, get hold of the moneys and proceed to pay out. We have gone a long way from the declaration of the Irish republic——
And from the section.
I suggest that this is completely within the section. I think we should get that question settled once and for all so that there will be no interruption. This debate has progressed on ordinary lines and quite relevantly to the subject matter of the section. The case to which I referred was fought out in America. The President argued that the late Government had no right to any of these moneys, because the late Government were not the successors of the republican Government. But the people who succeeded us are the successors of the republican Government and are paying out although they, before they succeeded us, said that we, to whom they hoped to succeed, were not the successors of the second Dáil. On that futile controversy, £100,000 of this good money was wasted. The late Government did make a promise to repay and the gist of the issue lay there. They promised to repay—to whom? To the subscribers, and there was to be no monkeying with the subscribers' money. They were to get the money. I should have no objection to subscribers being told at a certain point, "This bond is valuable; you are going to get payment for every cent of it; you can now assign it, knowing that it is valuable consideration." But I think it is ludicrous to ask this House to pay out this money to people who, we say, when parting with these bonds, did not believe they were worth five cents—at a time when there was legal action being taken to prevent the Government who had control of funds from getting any right or title even to repay the bonds. The people who adopted that attitude go across and say, "Give us these bits of paper; they do not mean very much," and now, as the Minister says, they were paying to enable this country to free itself. The Minister asked Deputy Cosgrave to think twice. That would be a big effort for the Minister, but I ask him to think once and, apart from thinking, to read the bond. If the Minister is not illiterate he will know what the phrases are, and will know what the proceedings turned upon as to who were the successors of Dáil Eireann. The Minister must know the argument that was put up against that. I object definitely to be asked in an amending Bill at this time to allow an extension of time. I do not refer to the original subscribers that the Minister was so vague about. If there are any original subscribers to be added who missed the opportunity, let us open the door to them, but certainly shut it against the President in an attempt to get money for the Irish Press. I was told incidentally regarding the Irish Press that the Irish people have now a paper upon which they can rely. There is an obvious way of showing whether people rely on it or not. Are they buying it; are they advertising in it?
That is not the question before the House.
It is incidental to a phrase used by the Minister. That is the test. Do not buttress up this safeguard. Let us see how it is being bought or supported by the people? Do not do it by the moneys of the unfortunate people in America. I am certainly against extending the time. The Minister talked vaguely of 15,000 subscribers. Some of these might be found not to be new applicants. How many applications are being made through the agency of the President? That is what I want to know?
Deputy McGilligan said that the American subscribers to the Dáil Eireann External Loan parted with their bonds to the President when they were not worth five cents. The Deputy also alluded to the fact that the American courts had ruled that these funds were to be returned to the subscribers. That was at least three years before the Irish Press was started, so that the people who assigned any of the bonds to the Irish Press knew perfectly well that they were assigning bonds worth at least their portion of the fund which the courts said were to be returned. So much for the Deputy's argument that they did not think the bonds were worth five cents. Deputy Costello can assure Deputy McGilligan that that is so. Bonds were assigned to other people besides the Irish Press. I was in America about 1928 and I remember that a representative of an Irish church organisation in the United States circularised and canvassed a large number of the original subscribers to the Irish External Loan, asking them to assign the bonds to the Chinese Mission, and I am perfectly well aware that a large number of them did so assign their bonds. I know also that in another instance, the building of a church in memory of the late Father Yorke of San Francisco, a number of gentlemen in that city canvassed the original subscribers to the Dáil Eireann Loan and asked them to assign their bonds to the committee for the purpose of building a church. Deputy Cosgrave stated that they had announced to the world and to the subscribers as far back as 1924 that they would repay these bonds. Simply because these original subscribers knew that the bonds were at least worth their proportion of the funds held by the American courts, which the courts held should be returned to the subscribers on a pro rata basis, Deputy Cosgrave, who was then President Cosgrave, on behalf of the Free State, stated that he would supplement the award that was made by the American courts to bring the payments up to the full 100 per cent. The owners knew that the bonds they were assigning were worth a substantial amount— worth, as President Cosgrave said, 100 cents to the dollar. Some of the bonds were assigned to the Irish Press, some to the Chinese Mission, some to the church in San Francisco, many to friends and to other charitable purposes. Because this is a dirty political game, and because some people exercised the right to assign the bonds to the Irish Press, Deputy McGilligan is endeavouring to prevent them exercising their right to assign the bonds to the Chinese mission or to the church——
I do not like to compare the Irish Press to the Chinese Mission. It is an odious comparison.
I am delighted to see Deputy McGilligan's poison coming out because the Irish Press is succeeding in spite of him.
I wonder is it.
The Deputy promised four years ago that we were going to be bankrupt in a couple of months.
Why, were you not?
I am not a bit interested in the Irish Press. Come to the Bill before the House.
The country was to be bankrupt four years ago. Every three months since it was the same, but it is not bankrupt yet.
You should touch wood.
The Irish Press is going on and it is not bankrupt yet. It is as far from being bankrupt as the country is.
The discussion on the control of the Irish Press, the Chinese Mission and the Father Yorke Memorial Church will be appreciated no doubt by financiers, but I do not desire to pursue the matter. I desire to ask the Minister for the sake of the credit of the Government, which, for good or ill, is the Government of the people, to give clear evidence of its resolution not to be involved in any shady transaction. If the promoter of any mining enterprise discovered a valuable deposit of ore on the property and then went around to his friends and said: “I have no particular reason to believe that these shares are worth anything. In fact, I hold that the people at present running the mine could not pay a dividend, because they are not the legitimate owners of the mine at all. Therefore, what about making them over to me. I will put them to some good use.” I think the Minister would seriously consider prosecuting that man for a fraud, if he proceeded to run the mine and to pay himself dividends on shares obtained from dupes. The present President of the Executive Council went to the American courts and said that Saorstát Eireann could not pay these funds as they were not the legitimate successors of the Second and Third Dáil. He afterwards abandoned that position and acquired the bonds by assignment from people who could ill-afford to assign them, and with the bonds in his pocket he came home and introduced legislation to redeem them at 100 per cent. There is a simple way of testing whether the assignors of the bonds believed them to be worth face value. Let the President take whatever bonds cent. There is a simple way of testing were assigned to him and let the cheque issued by the Government of the Saorstát for the redemption of the bonds be returned to the assignors with a letter to the effect that the assignments were made when the value of the bonds was in question, but that as they were now being redeemed at 100 per cent. he waived his claim to any assignments made under a misapprehension, in the confidence that if the assignors intended that he should get valuable bonds they would return the cheque and cancel the bonds in favour of whatever purpose the President desired to use them. The President would then receive the bonds from the assignors when they knew what they were doing, knowing that they meant him to have the money. Surely that is the easy way to put an end to the whole thing, to give these people an opportunity to revoke the assignments, if, in fact, they were misled when making them.
If they were not misled, they will send the money and the cancelled bonds back to the President who can use it for any purpose he likes or for any purpose the assignor indicates. There is no use in the Attorney-General or the Minister for Defence trying to pretend that it is a desirable or savoury transaction for the President of the Executive Council to introduce a Bill to this House and subsequently pass an amending Bill for the purpose of providing himself with funds— because that is what the effect of this legislation is—at the expense of persons in America who bought bonds, when they were ill able to do so, for a very lofty purpose and subsequently parted with them under very ambiguous circumstances. A Deputy once said that the President of the Executive Council should be like Cæsar's wife—above reproach. Cæsar's wife would not have lasted long if she entered into transactions of this sort. Her name certainly would not have become proverbial for a very lofty standard of conduct in succeeding generations. I suggest both to the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General that quite apart from the President's personal character, his character as President of the Executive Council of the State demands that there should be no question of ambiguity in regard to any financial transaction into which he enters directly or indirectly. Ambiguity is a charitable description to apply to the manner of the acquisition of these bonds for no consideration except shares in the Irish Press.
We object to the redemption of these bonds on such an assignment. We believe that it reflects on the public life of the country, but if the Minister will now say that the President is quite prepared to pay the money to the assignors—the President can invite them if he likes to return it to him— I have no hesitation in saying that our objection to this Bill will be immediately withdrawn and we shall be glad to facilitate him in securing the names of subscribers and in taking such other steps as will enable the Executive Council to redeem the loan to its last penny. But to enter into a conspiracy with the Government to line the pockets of the shareholders of the Irish Press—who, we cannot disguise from ourselves, are largely representatives or supporters of the Government —or to enter into a conspiracy with the Government to buttress up a semi-decrepit political hack paper is something we are not prepared to do. The Minister can prove his good faith and that of the President by adopting our suggestion. If he is prepared to do that he will have the unanimous support of the House in any steps he takes which are necessary to secure the repayment of this loan to the last penny.
And we are prepared to extend the time to have it done.
The Attorney-General
I would suggest to the Deputy who has just sat down that before he lays down what should be a guide to be followed by the President in this matter he should have considered suggesting a guide to the Opposition in regard to their attitude towards the previous Bill and towards this Bill. This is the first time I have taken part in a discussion on either of these Bills, but I have listened to the deluge of bilge from Deputy McGilligan and others in connection with certain transactions which they have described here to-night and described in words which seem to me to be words which should not have been used by responsible Deputies, particularly by persons in a responsible position in the Opposition, without first satisfying themselves that there was some basis of justification for their charges. Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan have calmly alleged here to-night that there was some onus on the Party to whom these bonds were assigned to go to the court and inquire as to whether the transactions by which these bonds were acquired were legitimate and proper. They have accused the President——
My suggestion was——
The Attorney-General
The Deputy can deal with my interpretation of his remarks afterwards. Deputy McGilligan used certain words here in his attack on the President. The exact word he withdrew but, as he said himself, he fell back upon the resources of the English language to say in other words what An Leas-Cheann Comhairle had ruled out of order. He charged the President with touring America "scrounging" for funds for the Irish Press, deluding and deceiving unfortunate people into parting with certain property on a misrepresentation as to its value. That is a charge, of all those things which are included in the word “overreaching,” which I take it any lawyer member of the Opposition must know, if they could substantiate it in court, would justify the cancellation of the transaction.
We believe it would.
The Attorney-General
I beg the Deputy's pardon; I did not interrupt him and he might allow me to say what I have to say without interruption. Deputy McGilligan talked a lot of ridiculous, absurd law. I have said that I think it is a disgrace to the Opposition, that throughout these two long debates they have lent themselves to abusing the head of the State, in the manner in which they have, without producing one single instance of a subscriber, or a person who has assigned a bond, who suggests that he had been defrauded in any way by the President. I say, and Deputy Dillon ought to realise it, that persons who make charges against the head of the State in that way, two years after the principal Act was passed, ought to have been able to produce in this House, at least one single instance of a person who alleged that he had been misled into parting with property the value of which he did not know and into parting with it because he was deceived by the President of the Executive Council.
Two years have elapsed since a debate in this House in which Deputies who are here, and a Deputy who is not here now, made allegations of this kind against the President. They have run these debates with something like a smile of satisfaction on their faces, knowing that they were throwing mud at Ministers of the State and hoping that some of it would stick, but never have they produced even a single letter from a subscriber to suggest that their charges were justified. The Minister in charge of the Bill said that the number of subscribers was 200,000, and that of these 200,000, 15,000 had sent in their claims late. Out of these 200,000 subscribers, Deputies opposite who have levelled this charge and have utilised these debates for the purpose of showering bilge water on the President and the Government, have not mentioned a single instance which would bear a moment's examination, to show that such charges were justified. Then Deputy Dillon, perhaps honestly, but I should say without due consideration, comes forward with the suggestion that it was on the President of the Executive Council to prove that everything he had done was above suspicion. Two years should have been sufficient to enable the Opposition to produce even one case of a person who could show that the President had acted improperly. The Minister for Defence has shown the history of these transactions. Deputy Cosgrave knows their history, and to-night he suggested that he had made terms, away back when the matter of these transactions was before the courts, to put up sufficient money which, added to the amounts held in the American courts, would enable the money to be paid in full. He did not say that he ever withdrew that offer or that any bondholder was anything but under the impression that at some future date the bonds would be honoured in full by some Government here. He only suggested that the delay in payment was due to the proceedings initiated by the President in the courts there.
The Opposition are quite aware of the hollowness and hypocrisy of the case which is being made here against the President. They are well aware that they claimed to be successors of the First Dáil and claimed these moneys. They are well aware that, whatever may be said against the President's action in challenging their title in the courts, the judge in America did not decide in their favour. It is true that the judge did not decide in the President's favour either, but gave judgment that the money should go back to the subscribers. What was to prevent Deputy Cosgrave, the moment that decision of Judge Peters was given, from saying: "I am prepared now, the moment the money has gone back to the subscribers and their names have been ascertained, to add to the sum awarded to each subscriber the amount necessary to bring it up to the full figure"? According to Deputy Cosgrave himself, that was what he was prepared to do; but now it is suggested that, because the President got assignments of the bonds from the people who owned these bonds, these particular bonds should be kept out—that every other bond assignment and every transaction dealing with them should be honoured, but that these particular bonds should be earmarked for non-payment. That is what I understood was suggested. Now, two years after the main Act was passed, those people who have been suggesting that these transactions were tainted, and should not be honoured, have not been able, by one single instance, to justify these charges.
The Attorney-General, apparently, altogether excluded from his recollection the initial move in this case. The initial move in this case was the move of the President to prevent this State getting these moneys and discharging those obligations.
The Attorney-General
I referred to that.
And the same person, having put every obsfacle in the way of this State in getting these moneys, and consequently in preventing them from being paid, occupies his time in getting these assignments and puts this State to £100,000 expense. Now, assuming for the moment that that person can be painted even more gloriously than the Attorney-General, in his enthusiasm, has painted him— that he is almost angelic—such action, to say the least of it, is not businesslike.
The Attorney-General
I asked the Deputy to justify his charges against the President.
I am not dealing with the persons who make the charges. I am stating the case. The Attorney-General comes in here, as a lawyer and as the adviser of the Executive Council, and he has not a leg to stand on in the case he has made. The very person he is supporting put this State to the expense of £100,000 and, having done that and having gone to the courts to prevent this State from entering into possession of the assets, so that they might be able to shoulder the liabilities, then a certain amount of time was employed by that person in getting those assignments. You can call him angelic if you like, but I do not like that sort of thing. It does not look well. In the first place, we were not the successors—this State wis not the successor—of the persons who borrowed the money. Very good! The case goes before the courts. It is a very unsavoury case. You were beaten in that case in the courts until other people came in—representatives of the bondholders—and money was poured out in America—for what purpose? -to prove that this Dáil was not in the line of succession from the First Dáil. That was the whole case. I will just give the Attorney-General two questions that were put to the President of the Executive Council. The judge said: "You say you had a Republic?" The answer was "Yes.""Had you your own postage?""We allowed the British to function as regards the Post Office." The judge said: "That is not the question I put to you. Had you your own postage?""No, we allowed the British to function." The next question was, "Had you got your own currency?" The answer was, "We allowed the British currency, to circulate." Again the judge said: "I did not ask you that."
The Attorney-General
Would not these have been your own answers in 1920 and 1921?
What date would it have been?
The Attorney-General
It would have been a date that you ought to remember.
Perhaps the Attorney-General will remind me.
The Attorney-General
I am asking the Deputy, would not the answers, which he just quoted from the President, be the answers be himself would make to the same questions if put to him in 1920 and 1921? Let the Deputy answer that question. Is not that so?
Perfectly. Let us come to this. I had a different answer, as President of the Executive Council of this State later, and, as I said in the course of the case, the first Dáil had altogether in its funds perhaps not as much as the Dublin Corporation had of a revenue for a year. In the time I was giving evidence in this case the revenue was over £20,000. You went to America, and damaged as far as you could the status and standing of this because you impugned the person who was then President of the Executive Council and would not accept his statements regarding payments, although at that time steps had been taken here and payments had been made here out of the Dáil Eireann funds. Denunciation of his political opponents will not absolve him in regard to his action in this whole business from behinning to end. The Attorney-General has asked if we have any instances of persons objecting. We did not look of any. I do not want one instance. I say that the bond of a person in America or elsewhere—a bond with the undertaking of the people to pay—should not have beer sold at a discount or for the ten cents the Minister for Defence has mentioned.
The Attorney-General has tried to get a declaration from Deputy Cosgrave here to the effect that there is a parallel between the case of the President of a functioning republic and that of the President of what might be called a republic of the future. Deputy Cosgrave has shown, from the statement of an American judge, that there never was a republic.
The Attorney-General
My point was that Deputy Cosgrave was ridiculing the President's answers.
I was not ridiculing his answers. I was stating a fact.
I am not even disappointed, because the Attorney-General cannot see just one question beyond the one he puts, but the question he put was the one put up by the American judge to the then Deputy de Valera, as to whether there ever was a republic functioning in this country, and the Attorney-General puts that question to Deputy Cosgrave, and gets a Statement, from both that, passing the American judge's test, there never was a republican Government in the country. I hope the Attorney-General is satisfied with the result.
The Attorney-General
No. Are you?
I am not bothered about it. Deputy Cosgrave talks about the Attorney-General's enthusiasm. I see that the Attorney-General is agitated, but I do not know whether his agitation is due to enthusiasm or not. The Attorney-General, on A certain occasion, a good many years ago, put a statement on record to the effect that he never would serve the Irish Free State. In view of that statement, I wonder, when I look at the Attorney-General, whether his agitation is due to shame or enthusiasm.
The Attorney-General
It is not shame, at any rate.
The Attorney-General, like most of his Party, has a very valuable type of memory that need not go back beyond the immediately preceding 12 months. Everything that happened in 1921, when the Attorney-General put, himself on record with that pronouncement in An Phoblacht, is gone.
It has nothing to do with the section.
It has gone now, as far as I am concerned. The Attorney-General has asked for proofs. The greatest proof of the President's odious conduct is his own action in regard to this Bill. The Attorney-General must face the test I tried to put and failed to get across to the Minister for Defence. He either believes these assignments were legally and properly made in a way that would stand investigation by a court or he does not. If he believes they were made properly and the word "subscriber" would carry with it in any court the interpretation that it was payment to a legally authorised representative of a subscriber, there was no necessity to put a phrase like that in the Bill. Why was it put in? Because either the Attorney-General or somebody else whose legal opinion the Government took had advised that those assignments were "dickey" and could not be stood over.
The Attorney-General
Absurd.
Very good. Why put in the phrase? Why not stand openly and boldly on "subscriber" meaning an, honest trasaction, freely made with knowledge of the circumstances, which will cover the assignment from a subscriber to another person?
The Attorney-General
If that is correct, it is exactly the same as "subscriber" in the second place.
If what is correct?
The Attorney-General
If that interpretation of the word "subscriber" in the 1924 Bin is correct, the words added in the 1933 Bill were quite unnecessary.
And the reason they are not unnecessary is because that is not correct. It is because the transactions are not honest or freely made or made with knowledge of the circumstances.
The Attorney-General
The Deputy ought to know that, in his reasoning on this, he is absolutely at sea.
The President went very much to sea, and across the sea, to get another contention proved and he did not make his contention before the American courts. At any rate, there was the phrase in the original Bill "subscriber or legal personal representative." If that covers a person who had got an assignment, from a subscriber of a proper type, there is no necessity to put in "person claiming by or under the subscriber." Why was the phrase put in? I suggest it was put in beecause the President and his advisers knew they could not stand over these assignments.
The Attorney-General
Absolutely wrong.
Why was the phrase put in?
To remove doubts.
Will the Attorney-General answer the question why was the phrase put in?
The Attorney-General
Because it is not as clear as the Deputy seems to think that "subscriber" by itself covers the assignee.
Exactly. So you had to cover the assignee? Is there any test, apart from the law, as to whether these assignments were made by people who knew that the bonds they had were valuable and that they were parting with them for what amounted to nothing? Is not a very easy test of that, apart from the courts, to try it out on any dozen, to try it out by advertisement in the newspapers, by one single advertisement in one single American newspaper? Put in an advertisement that, although under that the President is empowered to cash the assignments of these bonds which he got at a particular period, he is prepared to hand back, or, as Deputy Dillon put it, to waive, that assignment in his favour to any person who, seeing that advertisement in one American newspaper, asks for the waiving of the assignment. Will he do that? Gracious, will the Irish Press not loosen up on the possibility of having to give away 100 dollars? Will they not risk that on one advertisement in an American newspaper? This is not on legal matters, but as to whether the people who gave those bonds away realised what they were doing, and, whether they did or not, whether they rue it now when they find that the bonds have a definite assured value. Why cannot we get the thing down to some concrete point like that?
The Attorney-General has talked about the description of the President's activities which I gave. I think I described them rather mildly. He did go through America and he created the impression, so far as he could, by a court action that people here were not entitled to pay. In fact, if I might put it, a great deal more definitely than that, he tried to create the impression that nobody could pay until there was a republic declared in this country, until there was a republican Government, the inheritor of the Dáil under whose auspices these moneys were borrowed. That must certainly have caused a great deal of disappointment to very many people in the States, if there were any people looking forward to an early payment.
That is the first thing he did. He tried to create the impression that payment was a very long time off. He then went to those people and made an appeal by a circular. In that circular, he had two statements, one of which was certainly unauthorised for use and the other repudiated the moment it was found it was being used. They were the only two specific items quoted from this country with regard to what was described as a really national newspaper. Having created the impression that payment was very far off, he then, as I say, by the use of two statements in an unauthorised way—and one was definitely against the author's wish—tried to get up this sentimental idea about a newspaper in the Country. It is said here that people knew what these bonds were worth. To anybody who had followed the case—and mind you, they were a limited number, particularly when one thinks of the class of people who had subscribed in the States—it was known that there were about 44 cents of every dollar awaiting them.
That is more than the 5 cents which the Deputy mentioned.
That is only to those who followed the case. How many were those? Any of the people who were infatuated with the President and who read any part of that case would have turned immediately to what would have turned immediately to what he said and to his cross-examination. What did they find there? His definite denial that any Government, other than a Republican Government, that is to say, a Government functioning in a republic could pay the money. That certainly would have weakened their expectation of getting payment soon. Surely the tactics of going around and getting people to assign for the purpose of a newspaper, backed by two statements which had afterwards to be withdrawn, merit any terms I have poured on the President's conduct. Was that not fooling the people? If it was not, is the President prepared now to take even the one test of saying to certain folk: "Look here, in case I did get any of you folk in a mistaken idea of your rights to subscribe to this newspaper, I will give it back to you." That is the easiest, way to test the whole thing.
I am not so concerned with what the President did in Amerift. The curtain will never be lifted on that, but we know enough to make us suspicious that a great deal more did go on than we have heard of. It is with what he did when he came home that, I am more concerned-bringing in the 1933 Act and prohibiting any single person, such as the Attorney-General challenges us to produce, making his appearance when there was some reason for his appearing. The Attorney-General can get quite indignant and say that, two years after the Bill was passed, there has been nobody found to talk about rights. Why has that happened?
Because this Dáil has taken away rights which left it open to him to go into court and to claim that there is some substantial reason for his appearing. You definitely precluded any such person from coming along by saying: "It does not matter the President got on your soft side long ago and, without any knowlede of what your rights were, you signed this bond and we are going to cash it in favour of President de Valera in the Irish Press. That is a discreditable transaction, and my remark about fooling the people in America still holds good, and the best proof is the President himself.
Progress reported.