Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jul 1933

Vol. 17 No. 9

Dáil Eireann Loans and Funds (Amendment) Bill, 1933 (Certified Money Bill)—Report Stage.

Mr. Milroy

I move the following recommendation:—

Section 4, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

(1) Any person who claims to be a subscriber to the External Loans (or either of them) or the executor or administrator of a deceased subscriber may at any time before, but not after, the 31st day of August, 1934, apply in writing in the prescribed form and manner for redemption of the amount of the External Loans claimed to be due to such person, but no assignee or person claiming to act under a power of attorney shall be entitled to claim or to be paid any sum or security under this Act.

I think Senators have been gratified by the mood of accommodation and the inclination to listen to reason which the Minister has exhibited in connection with the matter which we have just disposed of. I hope the same mood will animate the Minister in considering this recommendation. It was only by an oversight that I did not table this recommendation on the Committee Stage when, possibly, it might be more appropriately considered. It is, however, better late than never, and I hope the Minister will not resist its acceptance. It is a recommendation based upon the ideas embodied in the concluding remarks I made on the Second Stage of the Bill, that it is important that the Executive and the Legislature of this State shall be above suspicion in matters such as those with which the Bill deals. Certain questions have been raised as to the propriety of the procedure that is proposed in this Bill for the repayment of certain moneys. It has been suggested that behind this Bill is the desire or the wish of the Executive Council to utilise their power to manoeuvre State funds from the State Exchequer into the coffers of a Party organ. I think, sir, that no matter to what Party one belongs—and I certainly am not raising this from a Party point of view—once that suggestion is made everything possible should be done to secure that there will be no basis upon which such a charge can be established. If this Bill passes without some such recommendation as this, I am afraid there will be in the public mind a misgiving that such procedure as I have suggested is undesirable has been indulged in. I do not want to block the operation of this Bill in regard to its effectiveness in paying back money to the subscribers who, the Minister for Finance stated in the Dáil, are in dire need of the funds. I want to facilitate that procedure. I want to facilitate the repayment of these moneys, if the Minister feels that this is the time and that the State can afford these payments. It is difficult I know to accept his assurance that this is the best time to indulge in such expenditure in view of certain other circumstances he has disclosed to the Oireachtas. He, however, assures us that this is the time and that we can afford it. If that is so I want to put no impediment in the way of these moneys being paid as soon as possible to the people who subscribed the money.

I am also interested in this recommendation to secure that there will be no impediment in the Bill which will prevent the transmission of these moneys to the people who are justly entitled to them. If I might just allude to the suggestion that has been made that one of the driving forces behind the Bill is that certain funds shall go into the coffers of a certain Party organ, I say I am reluctant to believe that is so, but I cannot acquit the Executive Council of being above the ordinary frailties of human nature and of being politicians who were politicians before they became statesmen. I do not know if they have yet reached that high altitude in the evolution of human beings as to be above such failings, but viewing this matter from the lowest and basest consideration, that they really do want the Bill through in order to enrich the depleted exchequer of their Party organ, there is nothing in the recommendation that will prevent that, assuming that the people who made these transfers to the President of the Executive Council are still prepared to retransfer their moneys. If the Minister wants to secure these moneys without giving these people an opportunity of saying whether they will transfer them to the coffers or the resources of that organ, then it is clear proof to me that he does not want to give these people a chance of reconsidering how they will dispose of the money.

There is nothing in the recommendation that, as far as I can see, should be resisted or that gives the Minister any grounds for resisting it. There is every reason, I think, for its acceptance in order to eliminate from the atmosphere that has been engendered by the discussion on the Bill the suspicion that people in Executive authority are using that Executive authority for Party purposes in a direction which is most undesirable—I mean the direction of finance—I have not put forward the recommendation as a Party matter. I have sole responsibility for it. I have put it forward with the desire of assisting the Minister, if possible, in securing that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, shall leave the Oireachtas free from any taint whatever of the suspicious aspect that has been thrown around it during its passage through the Oireachtas. I hope the Minister will meet this recommendation in the spirit in which I am trying to put it forward, that is, a non-Party spirit, and with the desire to make this Bill one that this Oireachtas can stand over without any shade of regret.

Mr. Comyn rose.

Cathaoirleach

Do you rise to second the recommendation, Senator?

Mr. Comyn

No.

Miss Browne

I second the recommendation, and I should like to say that, like Senator Milroy, I regard national honour as coming before Party advantage. If we wished to bring forward something that would damage the present Government, we could have thought of nothing that would damage them to anything like the extent that this collaring of £100,000, this manoeuvring to get £100,000 into a Party enterprise, damages them. This is something that we all feel ashamed of, although we know that nothing we could do as a Party would damage the Fianna Fáil Government. Still, I should like to see that out, because I regard national honour as greater than any advantage that this Bill could give the Party I belong to. I support Senator Milroy on that account.

Mr. Comyn

I am glad to hear Senator Milroy say that he is not bringing forward this motion as a Party motion. He said he would have brought the motion forward on the Committee Stage if it had not been for an oversight. I quite accept that, but I should have expected that Senator Milroy would have been satisfied with the clear and ample statement in respect of these loans which was made by the Minister on the last occasion. What was it that emerged in the course of that discussion? It was that, in December of last year, the American Minister, as representing his nationals, demanded payment of the money due in respect of these bonds. Senator Milroy, on that occasion, said that he accepted that letter as a genuine demand, and not alone was it a demand for the payment of the money, but it was a reminder that other demands had been made throughout a period of two years. It was an urgent demand made by that great American people for payment of a debt due to them from this country. They have made demands on other countries—on Great Britain, France, Italy and Finland and the various countries of Central Europe— and I am glad to say that we are going to pay the American people to the last shilling. We are not going to default; we are not going to make a token payment. We are an honest people, and we are going to pay the Americans the amount that is due to them. That is the position so far as the main portion of the debt is concerned. It so happens that a certain amount of that money, a certain number of these bonds, were assigned three or four years ago to Mr. de Valera, but not as representing a Party, and it is there that Senator Milroy is wrong. This newspaper is not a Party paper. Mr. de Valera got the assignment of a certain number of bonds. The people in this country who subscribed to the newspaper company subscribed their money on the true representation that a number of the American bondholders had also agreed to put their money into the enterprise. It is a great enterprise, I think, it is the largest enterprise started in Ireland in the last four or five years. It employs 300 or 400 people. Senator Milroy made the point that, in the first year of its trading as a newspaper, there was an apparent loss of £40,000 or £50,000.

Mr. Milroy

I never mentioned it.

Mr. Comyn

That loss was not unreasonable having regard to the way in which newspapers have to spend money in establishing themselves. The Irish subscribers subscribed with the knowledge that a certain number of Americans had assigned their bonds for the purpose of having the money applied to this industry. They subscribed their money on the faith of that. What does Senator Milroy propose?

Mr. Milroy

We have no statutory evidence of that.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Milroy is a very able man and a great lawyer although not a professional lawyer. He says that he has no statutory evidence of that, but all the people who subscribed money to that paper were aware that a number of the American bondholders had assigned their money for the purpose of establishing this paper. Now, Senator Milroy says, as proof of good faith, that the Executive of this country should deprive the shareholders in this paper of the security which they had under the assignment to Mr. de Valera of some of these bonds—I do not know what the amount is. Here is what he asks:—

.... no assignee or person claiming to act under a power of attorney shall be entitled to claim or to be paid any sum or security under this Act.

I ask Senator Milroy whether that would not be a great injustice to the Irish subscribers.

Mr. Milroy

Not a bit.

Mr. Comyn

I am not a subscriber to this paper. I am not personally concerned, but if I had subscribed £100 or £200, with the knowledge that the American bondholders were to subscribe £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000, I would certainly feel that I was very unfairly dealt with if that money was now withheld in order to satisfy the sentiment which Senator Milroy has expressed. I think the Government would have no right to do that. They would have no right to treat the Irish shareholders with injustice merely to show that in the mind of Senator Milroy they were above suspicion. There is no suspicion attaching to the Executive in this matter. The Americans demanded payment. We are making payment and we are paying in full, and the Irish subscribers are entitled to say to the Government or to Senator Milroy: "We subscribed our money; there is more money needed, and there is more money available from the proceeds of these bonds that have been assigned. We say that we are entitled to have these assignments respected." Senator Milroy is most unreasonable because when these bonds were originally litigated and when it was stated that the money should be repaid to the bond holders, there was an enquiry as to who the bondholders were, which lasted three or four years. Does Senator Milroy wish the Government, to the prejudice of the subscribers to this newspaper, which is not a party paper, to go now on a wild goose chase looking for the personal representative of every individual bondholder? Senator Milroy has said that this is not a party motion. I accept absolutely his statement, but I think he is unduly exiguous on the present occasion and I am perfectly satisfied that he sees the position more clearly than I do.

Mr. Milroy

Quite so.

Mr. Comyn

I do say with great respect to Senator Milroy that he is not exactly serious in this motion. He is putting it forward as a debating motion for the purpose of making a debating speech and keeping himself in training in this Assembly. With regard to Miss Browne, she and I have a great regard for the national honour, but it is perfectly safe on the present occasion. We are paying our debts, and paying them in full. We are not making a token payment and we are not repudiating our debt.

Miss Browne

Why not make that clear?

Mr. Comyn

We are going to clear up a debt that was incurred through the generosity of the American people.

Miss Browne

Why not clear it up now?

Cathaoirleach

You cannot make another speech on the matter, Senator.

Mr. Johnson

A good deal is said about national honour in this matter. I think it would be far better if Party disputants, in view of the course this controversy has taken, would say less about their regard for national honour in taking the line they have taken in this matter. I cannot understand, except on one contention, what the reason for this recommendation is. The only presumption is that because the President of the Executive Council, and the Executive Council itself, are leaders of a political Party and because there is in existence a newspaper organ which supports that political Party and which, whatever Senator Comyn may say, is a Party organ—not necessarily owned by the Party but, nevertheless, a Party organ and quite justifiably so because there is no shame in being a Party organ so long as the Party agrees with the editors and proprietors of the organ—and because there are bonds in the possession of the supporters of that Party, given to them for the purpose of financing that paper, there is something unjustifiable or indecent in passing this Bill at the present time. The whole stress, I take it, lies on the fact that, because these gentlemen are Ministers of State, this Bill ought not to be introduced at this time. Essentially, that is, I think, the suggestion. As to the appropriateness of the time, I think that was dealt with effectively and completely by the statement of the Minister on the last occasion regarding the demand that has been made for the fulfilment of the promises of the previous Government to the American Ministers. The question is then raised as to the date on which these bonds were transferred or assigned. If this appeal for the transfer of the bonds were made at the time these gentlemen were Ministers, there would be some real gravamen in the allegations and suspicions that are levelled against them. The most important feature of this whole question lies in the fact that Mr. de Valera was in opposition in 1929 and 1930 and, from all appearances, there was no likelihood at all of his being in a position to command the disposal of these bonds.

Every feature of the political situation at that moment, from the point of view of the present leaders of the Opposition, was that Mr. de Valera and his cause were going down. Nevertheless, these bonds were assigned to him in the knowledge that the then Government, which would probably be the succeeding Government, had bound themselves to pay off these bonds. That is the position. Because of the accident of circumstances, because of political success, Mr. de Valera and his Government have the responsibility for carrying out and fulfilling the promises of the previous Government, and it is now suggested that, because, when in opposition and with no prospect of being the Government, certain properties came into his hands, he should not, as Minister, fulfil the obligations which, as Minister, he is bound to fulfil. That seems to me to be the question, brought down to its realities, and it disposes entirely of the suggestion of anything being dishonourable in this.

Colonel Moore

I attended a meeting of the Gaelic League some years ago when the question of these same debts was brought up and discussed. A proposition was put forward at that meeting that all this money should be handed over to the Gaelic League. Mr. de Valera was in favour of that. The President at that period and a good many of the Ministers who belonged to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party strongly opposed the proposal. They expected, I suppose, that they would be able to get a hold of this money themselves. At any rate, they opposed the proposition, and the result was that instead of the Gaelic League getting a very large sum of money, with which it could have done immense work for the Irish language, the matter went into the American courts. where it was decided that the money should be handed over to the original subscribers. If the last Government had done what was reasonable and sensible they would have asked that this money should be handed over to the Gaelic League. It would have been of great benefit to this country and to the Irish language movement. They would not agree to that because they were jealous of the idea of Mr. de Valera getting a hold of it. They wanted to get a hold of it themselves. I think that at this stage it is most unreasonable and unjust to be dragging up this thing and inventing specious attacks on Ministers, but it is only in consonance with a lot of things that these same people have done.

Mr. O'Neill

It certainly is very pleasant this afternoon to hear the mildness of Senator Milroy, and to notice that Senator Miss Browne is less vigorous than usual where the present Government is concerned. When this Bill was getting a Second Reading in this House on Thursday night of last week the benches opposite assumed the appearance of the ten little nigger boys. Even the benches around me were not over thickly populated when the Minister took up his papers and bid Senators good night on the stroke of 11 o'clock. But something has happened since. A mildness has been displayed by Senator Milroy which does not often overtake him. I am not going to go into the history of these bonds, but so far as I can remember they were issued in January, 1920 and in November, 1921. In the discussions which have taken place the fact has been lost sight of that these bonds were taken up by Irish exiles, mostly exiles of very little wealth. A great many of them were taken up—they were sneeringly referred to in the other House—by servant girls. The reason for the issue of these bonds was to supply funds to meet the attack of the British Government at the time.

Mr. Milroy

Is the Senator's speech in order? I submit that instead of speaking to the recommendation he is making a Second Reading speech.

Cathaoirleach

I think the Senator is in order.

Mr. O'Neill

I expect, a Chathaoirligh, you would without the help of Senator Milroy. This money was subscribed mostly by servant girls in America, if you wish, to counteract the attack of the British Government at the time, but principally to counteract the attack and the atrocities that were being committed during the Black and Tan régime, an attack led by the British Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Lloyd George, that will go down to history as a black record on the British Government. One stubborn fact has come out of this discussion, which is undoubtedly an honourable fact: that the members of the other House with the members of this House, of all parties, say that they are prepared that we should honour the honourable undertaking given by President de Valera. An admission by some of my friends on the left of honouring any undertaking given by President de Valera must be gall and wormwood to a great many of them.

Now I happened to be in America when these bonds were issued and to come into close contact with the late Harry Boland who had control of the issuing of them. In passing, I may say that I never met a man who had a truer spirit of honour or a more childlike simplicity, and after so many years I find it difficult, even still, to associate Harry Boland with death. Without egotism I can say that I happened to be in the principal bureau in New York when these bonds were taken up. The sole spirit that prompted the people in America to take them up was to help Ireland. I remember meeting an old Fenian in Philadelphia who said to me: "I am glad that I shall be able to purchase one of these bonds. I will put it side by side with the bonds which were issued during the days of the old Fenian movement. I never expect to be paid, and I do not want to be paid so long as I am satisfied that I am helping Ireland." I would not mention these facts, but for the sneers that have been made against the people in America who purchased these bonds.

Mr. Milroy

By whom?

Mr. O'Neill

If the Senator refers to the debates that took place on this matter in the Dáil, and the language that was used there, it should bring a blush of shame to the face of any honest, decent Irishman.

Mr. Milroy

There were no sneers at anybody who subscribed to the national loan.

Mr. O'Neill

I can fully understand the spirit that prompted the bondholders in America to assign them to President de Valera. They were assigned to him, in the words of subscribers, in many cases "to do as he wished with them," and, undoubtedly, to help, whether it is entitled to the name or not is another question, the promotion of a national organ. I can understand the spirit that prompted them. I think it is a pity that President de Valera should be subjected to what he was subjected to in the other House. I think it is a pity that he should be taunted with acting in this matter for personal gain, and in the language that Senator MacLoughlin used on the Second Reading of the Bill, when he said: "In other countries the Government which would authorise its Minister for Finance to pay its President £80,000 or £100,000 for Party propaganda would not last a week. Here public opinion is so demoralised as to be numb." I am not here to give President de Valera a certificate of character, but I felt that in reading up those debates that what was said was unfair to him. He may have committed many political sins.

Mr. Milroy

Impossible.

Mr. O'Neill

Well, when he has committed as many political sins as Senator Milroy, I will say no more. The historians of the future will deal with his mistakes. I am speaking now as one who in days of danger was in very close proximity to President de Valera, and if he has committed political sins he certainly has never committed the sin of acting for personal gain. Never. It is pitiable that debates cannot be carried on without this sort of personal abuse being indulged in. President de Valera may have his faults, but he is an ennobling spirit doing what he can for the people of this country, and particularly the lowly people, and what he is doing shall not be forgotten.

Mr. MacEntee

It seems to me that this amendment has been put down, notwithstanding the soft and suave manner in which Deputy Milroy spoke to-day, out of an excess of spleen and without any consideration whatsoever to the effect if it were carried. On the Second Stage of the Bill I indicated that on a certain date in 1929—the date for which I have the last returns—almost 34,000 bond certificates had been assigned and that the aggregate value of these bonds was almost £900,000; that those which had been assigned in exchange for shares in the holding company in America which holds the shares of the Irish Press on behalf of the assignors were less than half the total number and much less than half of the total value. But, in order to get at this comparatively small number, Senator Milroy under this amendment would deprive every assignee of all benefits in these bonds, no matter how the interest was secured; whether it was for full value and consideration, as it was for full value and consideration in the case of those who assigned the bonds for the purpose of securing an interest in the Irish Press; or whether it was given purely voluntarily as a gift, as it was in the case of those who assigned a considerable number of bonds to those who were responsible for the Chinese Mission, to those responsible for the Yorke Memorial and other projects. All of these, if Senator Milroy's amendment were carried, would suffer. It is noted that there is one class that he would exclude from his proposed disqualification and that is those who might claim to be the executors or administrators of a deceased subscriber. Once again I should like to emphasise that of the 34,000 that have been assigned, scarcely 6 per cent. represented bonds in respect of which claims have been filed by administrators or executors or agents. He will except from the scope of the amendment that 6 per cent., but every one of the remainder, no matter how they came by their bonds, whether received as gifts, acquired through death or otherwise than being mere executors or administrators, whether as donations to charitable organisations, whether assigned to the Friends of Irish Freedom, or the Gaelic-American newspaper, or whether filed by relatives of residents in Ireland, would be immediately deprived of what is at present their property, under Senator Milroy's amendment. He is asking, in order that he might gratify, since he has put the amendment down on his own personal initiative and not at the desire of his Party, his personal spleen against those who have founded and established the Irish Press, the Seanad to pick the pockets of people in America, most of whom have received their assignments of the bonds because they have rendered services directly or indirectly to the Irish nation in the past. I think that in itself would be sufficient reason why the Seanad ought to reject the amendment. There is, however, a more far-reaching consideration. Could we at any time take up the attitude that we are asked to take up by Senator Milroy here? If this Government were in the market to-morrow for money and we asked people to subscribe to our national loan what position would we be in if the Seanad accepted this recommendation?

Mr. Milroy

An honourable one.

Mr. MacEntee

That when the time came to repay the loan some Party, whether in the Government or in the Opposition, would get up and say that we would refuse to honour our bond when it was presented because we did not like the way in which those who had taken our bonds had dealt with it afterwards; that they had transferred their interest in it for the benefit of such-and-such an undertaking that we did not like, or for the benefit of such-and-such a Party to which we objected. How could we possibly face the public and ask them to lend us money, if we were to accept this, when they would know that that principle had been accepted by one of the Houses of the Oireachtas and that it was going back as the considered recommendation of that House, which is supposed to represent the more responsible section of the community, and supposed to represent that section of the community which has the greatest experience in dealing with financial matters? I see a smile on the face of Senator Milroy. I know now that he does not mean the Seanad to take this seriously; that it has been put down as a mere political demonstration. I think that in matters of that sort it is better that political demonstrations should be confined to the other House. Senator O'Neill has indicated the pain which all sections of the people, who stood aloof more or less from one side or the other in this quarrel which occurred ten years ago, and which it is time the Irish people were permitted to forget, felt at the proceedings in the other House and the disgust aroused in the mind of every decent Irish man and woman. I am sure that Senator Milroy, when he reconsiders his position in the matter, will not press this recommendation to a vote. But, if he does press it to a vote, I hope the Seanad will deal with it in the manner which it deserves and that it will lay this down as a principle— that when we borrow money upon our bond it is no concern of ours what the bondholder does with his interest in it afterwards; that the only thing we are concerned with is that when the bond is presented for payment it will be duly honoured no matter who holds it.

Mr. Milroy

I simply echo the Minister's hope that this House will deal with this recommendation as it deserves to be dealt with and, in my opinion, the only way in which this House can deal with it in that respect is to pass the recommendation and enable the matter to be considered by the other House. In moving the recommendation, I disclaimed any idea of being animated by political or Party motives in this and I repudiate the suggestion made by certain speakers that that is behind the recommendation. I know of no reason why, if the Minister is so concerned with the honour of this State as one would gather from his concluding observation, this could not be accepted by him; indeed, it should be welcomed by him. This recommendation is not intended to prevent or even impede the honouring of the obligations of this State. It is rather to secure that the obligations of this State, in so far as they have been incurred, shall be discharged to the people to whom this State really owes them, and that they shall not be discharged to a third party who has secured the transmission of certain funds in a roundabout and, I think, rather dubious way. I think that I have tried to keep the discussion of this particular matter detached from Party politics and Party considerations. I have tried to indicate why, in moving in this way, I am concerned with the reputation and the honour of this State, and that those responsible for Executive administration and control shall not be allowed to act in such a way as will bring their responsibilities under the shadow or imputation of Party manoeuvres. I see no reason why this recommendation should be resisted by the Minister. I see every reason why he should have not only accepted, but welcomed it as a way out of the situation created by the discussion in the other House, which has been referred to, I think, in a way that is not exactly desirable in this House. I do not think it should be within the competence of one House of the Oireachtas to comment, either adversely or otherwise, upon the conduct or procedure in the other part of the Oireachtas, and I hope that this will not be taken as a precedent. If there is a danger of that, I hope there will be something put in the Standing Orders that will prevent a repetition of the rather unseemly reflections made upon the proceedings of the other House of the Oireachtas. I would be tempted, if I wanted to deal with certain questions, to deal with them in a Party spirit. I am going to refrain from that, for various considerations. In the first place, I think it is undesirable that there should be that kind of Party consideration imported into this discussion; secondly, to enlarge on that would not strengthen the case for the recommendation; and, in the third case, I believe it is necessary to allow the House to dispose of its business before it rises. I want to say that I am urging and, if necessary, I will press this recommendation to a division, but there is nothing in it that in any way reflects, or that could be considered to reflect, upon the integrity of the Minister or of his colleagues in the Executive Council. I think there is a provision in it which will help to safeguard the position of the Executive Council and the honour of this State, and for these reasons I am pressing it, and hope the House will give it a favourable decision.

Recommendation put and declared lost. Senators Miss Browne, Counihan, Milroy and O'Hanlon dissenting.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.