The great hurry there was about the discussion on this Bill last night has somewhat abated, and we can take it rather more leisurely to-night, and can examine in detail this particularly scandalous transaction with better documentation as to exactly what did happen than was possible last night. The section which it is proposed to amend by enlarging the date is a section which itself was an amendment of the earlier Act. That section in the 1933 Act allowed any person, or the duly authorised agent of any person who claims to be a subscriber to the External Loans (or either of them) at any time before, but not after the 31st day of August, 1934—that is now being changed to the 30th day of June, 1936—to apply in writing in the prescribed form and manner for the redemption of the amount of External Loans claimed to be due to such person. It also provided that no person who has omitted to make an application for redemption shall be entitled to be repaid under the Act the amount of the External Loans due to him.
I stop at that point to make this observation, that apparently a person who claims to be a subscriber, or a person who claims to be the duly authorised agent of a person claiming to be a subscriber, may put in a claim, but when we come to the payment section, we find that payment apparently is only to be made to such person, but not to a duly authorised agent. That may be a slight handicap on the efforts to get this public money through to the Irish Press, because the President will have to take on himself the somewhat odious task of directing his Minister for Finance to pay him certain moneys, although he, the President, being entitled to claim as the duly authorised representative of a subscriber, is not, in fact, a subscriber and cannot claim to be such. He will, possibly, however, swallow that as easily as he swallowed quite a number of other things, and give orders to have this money paid to himself for his paper.
It is possible after better consideration of this matter to get the whole affair more in line. What is it proposed to repay? It is proposed to repay moneys that were subscribed by people on a certain guarantee. The bond which will be repaid is headed "Republic of Ireland—Bond Certificate." Then there are some dots and there follows:—
"I, Eamon de Valera, President of the elected Government of the Republic of Ireland——"
Times have changed.
"——acting in the name of and by the authority of the elected representatives of the Irish nation, issue this certificate in acknowledgement of your subscription of............dollars to the First National Loan of the Republic of Ireland. This certificate is not negotiable."
That ought to be remembered—that it is not negotiable. The people who floated this had the view that there should be no ugly trafficking in this money which people were asked to put up for the special purpose of the foundation of the Irish republic. "This certificate is not negotiable, but is exchangeable"—under very rigid circumstances as the bond itself sets out—"if presented at the Treasury of the Republic of Ireland one month after the international recognition of the said republic for one dollar gold bond of the Republic of Ireland. Said bond to bear interest at 5 per cent. per annum"—this, of course, was clearly drawn by somebody who had a mathematical turn—"from the first day of the seventh month after the freeing of the territory of the Republic of Ireland from Britain's military control and said bond to be redeemable at par within one year thereafter." What "thereafter" applies to I have not been able to find out.
There is the bond with "Republic of Ireland" on the heading. The President described himself as the President of the elected Government of the Republic of Ireland. The subscription is acknowledged as being a subscription paid "to the First National Loan of the Republic of Ireland." It is not negotiable, but it is exchangeable when presented at the Treasury of the Republic of Ireland a month after the international recognition of the republic. It is to be exchanged for a dollar gold bond of the republic and is to bear interest after the lapse of the time I have mentioned, the time to date from "the freeing of the territory of the Republic of Ireland from Britain's military control." I emphasise that because the Minister for Defence last night seemed to forget that the republic had ever been mentioned, or that the determination of the event at which the payment was to take place was couched in terms of the republic. He used a rather namby-pamby phrase for him, "When the country was free." It is an interesting commentary on his activities that he is proposing now to pay, his idea being that the payment should be made when the country is free. Even by that rather roundabout route it is good to get that declaration of the Minister's mentality as regards the country at the moment. There was the situation—bonds floated in the name of the republic and to be paid, when the international recognition of the republic had taken place, in the currency of the said republic. They were apparently going to have dollars. That was the idea then.
The next step is, after the money is collected, an action is taken in the courts in America. This matter was discussed at great length and I do not propose to go into it. But the salient facts are that the man who is now President of this State engineered an action against the then Government of the country on the ground that that Government had no right to pay back any of those subscribers to this loan and were not entitled to get any of the money subscribed because they were not the inheritors of the second Dáil. But the man who is now Vice-President was acting as envoy of the republic in America at that time. When that action, on the argument that the Government then existing was not the inheritor of the second Dáil, seemed to have taken a wrong turning, as undoubtedly it did, the man who is now President got Mr. Seán T O Ceallaigh, then envoy in America, to engineer a group of bondholders to take another action on a different line, with the result that, of course, another group of bondholders had to be engineered to go into the courts on a different line again, the result being that about £100,000 of the money was lost in legal activity.
The man who is now President then travelled across to America. In court he was cross-examined in a rather pungent way by Judge Peters as to the proof he had of the republic having functioned. The President incidentally held firm and fast to the idea that the republic had been established and was functioning. He was asked the question whether the republic had a postal service and other services of its own, and he said, "No, we use the British." That was regarded as rather an evasion by the judge. The judge told him twice that that was not the question he was asked; that he had given an answer to a different question. The judge did not know President de Valera as we do or he would not have regarded that as surprising. He did comment on it twice. The judgment which was handed down declared that these moneys were to be repaid to the subscribers—the original people.
Round about that time the man who is now President of the State was operating a sort of second Government inside the country, passing resolutions in which they, amongst other things, were condemning the Hierarchy and protesting to the Vatican against the Hierarchy not recognising a different Government from the lawfully constituted one as being the Government of the country. In that mood and in that atmosphere the journey to America was made and this rubbishy argument put up as to the republic. But the judge wiped all this out and the subscribers were to get back their money and they were to get it back through the medium of the American courts. A receiver was appointed, but he was in some difficulty, because £100,000 of the money was wasted in litigation.
That was the situation when the President decided that another national aid was emerging. It was no longer the freeing of the country from British military rule, or the declaring of a republic, but the founding of another Irish newspaper. The President sent out a circular signed by the lawyer who fought the case unsuccessfully for him in the courts. It was addressed to each subscriber and said:—
"Dear friend, the money which you gave in the years 1919 to 1921 to help the cause of Ireland is about to be given back to you. You are probably one of those who gave your money at that time as a free gift, expecting no other return for it than the satisfaction of participating in a just cause and aiding the people of Ireland in a time of need."
These two opening sentences are to be noted—the money you gave previously will now be given back to you and you probably never expected to get it back. The atmosphere of the two sentences is: "Here is a windfall for you. You subscribed and you never expected to get a cent of the money. You are going to get some part of it." There is a certain amount of emotional appeal in the first sentence. Then it continues:—
"I feel accordingly that when you read this leaflet you will be disposed to make the money available a second time, again in a good cause and for the benefit of Ireland."
Not the Irish Press.
Let us compare the position. The bond issued was issued in the name of the Irish Republic. It was headed "Republic of Ireland." It was expressed to be paid on presentation at the Treasury of the republic. But it was certainly presented, not as being in the name of the head of a political Party—not a Party business, but a State business. And the idea of State as opposed to Party is carried forward in the letter:
"I feel, accordingly, that when you read this leaflet you will be disposed to make the money available a second time, again in a good cause and for the benefit of Ireland."
Then there is a hurried insertion of a sentence, for fear people should think that the cause of Ireland was too much bound up with one individual:
"While these funds are being solicited by way of donations, Mr. de Valera will, of course, not derive personally any monetary benefit from them."
So, clearly, the President is not going to make any money out of this. It is the State; it is Ireland. The cause of Ireland is again being pleaded and people are being asked to subscribe in defence of Ireland. Then there is the following sentence about the President not getting any monetary profits:
"He intends to make the necessary and proper arrangements to ensure that if any profits accrue from the enterprise, or if there should be any distribution of assets, such profits and the amount of any such distribution will be made available for the donors, according to their respective donations."
That is, live horse and you will get grass, put in another form. But there was a very definite promise contained later in a secondary leaflet that was sent out and that was, that if people subscribed to a certain amount, if their subscriptions were turned into the Irish Press for ten dollars, or more, they were going to be recorded, more or less, as shareholders; just what rank they were to occupy for the purpose of getting dividends or profits is not stated. It was stated that if they did not subscribe to the extent of fairly large denominations, if they subscribed amounts such as ten dollars and were only amongst the smaller fry, they were going to get an immediate return; they were going to be put on the free list for the reception of copies of the weekly edition of the Irish Press. That was a really good consideration! There has not yet been a weekly edition of the Irish Press, so that if the first phrase is “live horse and you will get grass,” the second was even a still greater extension by way of duplicity of that term, because it was simply to say: “We will put your name on the list of free recipients of the Irish Press weekly edition.” I hope, for the sake of honesty, there was added afterwards: “If and when the same is printed and published.” People who did subscribe in the smaller denominations, less than ten dollars, have honestly had that bargain abided by. I am sure their names are on the free list for copies of the weekly edition of the Irish Press. It does not cost anybody anything and I am sure it is a pledge the President would be delighted to carry out.
With that appeal to people to subscribe for the good of Ireland there went a boost of the Irish Press. The President was to found a national newspaper. I believe I was wrong when I said last night that quotations were given from only two people in support of the view that there was a great necessity for a new newspaper in the country. I understand, after refreshing my memory by reading the old debates, that there were three people. There was, first of all, the Reverend Father Devane, whose permission does not appear to have been sought for the lifting of the quotation but who, at any rate, has made no objection. Then there was Professor O'Rahilly, who stated afterwards that he had given no authorisation for the use of his name. Thirdly, there was Professor Tierney, who vehemently objected to his name being associated with this. Without any disrespect to the other two, I would suggest that the only useful name was Professor Tierney's. I do not say it was useful because he stands higher, either as a scholar or in any other way than the other people; but he had this special value at that time, that he was a member of the then Government Party and, by introducing his name, colour could be and was given in America to the pretence that here was a paper, the desirability for which had been expressed by members both of the Government and of the Opposition. Professor Tierney's name was deliberately dragged in in order to give that colouring.
Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald reported here that when he was in America he found many people regretting they had turned over their subscriptions to the foundation of this paper because they had been deluded by the use of Professor Tierney's name. It was deliberately and cutely done. That was the situation at that point. Many subscribed for a national purpose following an appeal by a person who was a national leader and they were only to be paid back when the national objective had been achieved and when it was clearly ascertained that the objective had been achieved by the determination of two very specific events, the international recognition of a particular state of Government in the country and the clearing out of British military authority from the whole country. I pass the judgment on it that that was not mere propaganda, although there was, undoubtedly, a propaganda atmosphere about it. It was to indicate to people what was undoubtedly the intention at that time, and that was that this money was being collected for a definitely national purpose. The man who went over did not go as the head of the Sinn Féin Party; he did not state himself to be such. He represented, himself, as far as he could, the country, the nation, and the pledge to the people was "that this money is going to be used only for national purposes and you will get your repayment when that national purpose is achieved and that national purpose is the foundation of a republic." Hence, these other terms, "You will only get it on application to the republican treasury and you will be paid in republican currency."
I stress all these things to show that the whole thing was clouded around. Perhaps that is a wrong phrase and I should have said that I stressed these things to show that the whole thing was inside the framework of nationality, the nation, and not any political Party in it. The leader of the Government which is now paying out these moneys in a round-about way to a Party newspaper indicated how strongly he held that view when he opposed, in the courts, the repayment, because he said the time had not come, that the event which was to determine the repayment had not come about and, secondly, the people who proposed to seize the money and pay it out only for that purpose—there was going to be no handing over of it to Party organs in those days—were not entitled to get it because they were not the inheritors of the Dáil which represented the Republic. Then there is the sudden twist shown in that letter, carefully hidden in that letter. Again the appeal is made: "You will make this money available a second time in a good cause and for the benefit of Ireland." I am just stopping at that as if there was nothing else done. It is getting money by false pretences, getting money on that letter and applying it to a newspaper which is nothing else, and nobody is going to make any claim that it is anything else but a party organ.
A Government representing a Party in this country may get such an idea of the importance of that Party, and of the Government that comes from it, as to think that anything they do is national. But only the blindest, only the most intoxicated person—intoxicated by his own egotism—will claim that an organ which is purely and entirely a Party organ represents the nation; an organ that is founded for the advancement of a particular Party; an organ which has "Party" written all over it. If anybody did not know its foundations, I suppose a perusal of its columns for a week would make it quite clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that a more partisan paper does not exist. Being partisan, it is only carrying out the objective of its founders. But it is put up to the people here "Will you make the money available again in a good cause, and for the benefit of Ireland"? And there is an added duplicity; in order to make it appear that the organ is not a Party but a national one, you have the use of the names of the Rev. Fr. Devane, Professor O'Rahilly, and a member of the then Government Party, Professor Tierney. I would still think it was a scandalous proceeding, but one could say at any rate that the scandalous proceeding was openly brought to the notice of the American people, and that they subscribed openly, if the phrase had been used "we are going to found a Party organ; that Party organ is going to be controlled by the same Eamon de Valera who once was described as President of the Republic of Ireland, and who hopes to get a republic." He would have been a wise man if he said that he had such a republic inside his hand but refused to grip it. But that is another matter. Suppose it had been said: "This same person who once did come to you speaking as a national representative now comes to you speaking as a Party representative and wants you to give him over this money"; if he had got it then, there could have been very little complaint. But the money is got there under the guise of a national subscription, a national purpose, a national objective. Again it goes right back to the earlier sentence, where "there was no return expected, other than the satisfaction of participating in a just cause, and aiding the people of Ireland in a time of need." That is a letter written by a very acute-minded lawyer, and obviously carefully drafted with the intention of getting money from people to help a Party organ under the guise of a national subscription. That is how the money was got. Now the money has got to be repaid. To whom? The original idea was to repay it to the subscribers or, where a subscriber had died, to the legal personal representative. When this clause that we are seeking to amend now was under discussion before it was sought to limit the people who might make application or might get payment, because a variety of people was covered. We tried to cover, as coming under the word "subscriber," a person lawfully claiming on the death of a subscriber as personal representative. That was the original, good idea. It was also sought to cover "one of the next-of-kin"— another good idea — and "a beneficiary under the will of a subscriber." If a person died leaving by will those particular bonds to certain people, then those people should come in. Then there was sought to add: "or a bona fide purchaser for an amount of not less than 60 per cent. of the face value of the subscriber's subscription." We are told that the Irish Press is doing magnificently. It was rather more difficult to argue that in 1933, because the directors were a little bit new to the game then, and they published, with all the glaring defects that were revealed thereby, the balance sheet of the Company.
