Section 5 of the Bill reads:
This Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the passing of the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act, 1933 (No. 6 of 1933), and shall have and be deemed always to have had effect as on and from the passing of that Act.
It is an old adage that children must creep before they walk, but this legislative infant prodigy is going to jump hurdles several months before it is born. I wonder if the Minister for Agriculture, in his enthusiasm for raising bloodstock, has been the inspiration for this particular Bill. I should like to ask the Minister if he can give us any estimate of the number of further exorcisms which will be required before the ghost of the empty formula is finally laid. I interrogated the Minister for Local Government some time ago in a similar way but he was unable to give any kind of definite reply save to say that, as the necessity for further implementing of the removal of the Oath arose, the Government would deal with it.
This new game invented by the Government of chasing the Oath is likely to rival blind man's buff as a popular game for future generations. I have no doubt that at some date in the distant future some of the grandchildren of the Minister will be asking, "Grandad, what did you do in the Great War?" And he will reply, "I chased the Oath through the Seanad."
This game was started by the President some time ago. He has, however, recently reverted to his favourite pastime of playing postman's knock with Mr. Thomas. It was then continued, as I inferred a moment ago, by the Minister for Local Government. I am not quite sure whether the Minister for Lands and Fisheries indulged in the pastime or not. Here we have the Minister for Finance to-day coming along, believe it or not, to indulge in another lap of this game of chasing the Oath through the Oireachtas. I believe he will tell us that this is the final stage of this performance, the final triumph of the anti-Oath element in the State. I think if he takes that view he is unjustifiably sanguine, unwarrantably optimistic. I think no one who pays close attention to the implications of the Constitution and its provisions will agree with the Minister that this terminates the discussion of the Oath.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking on another Bill in the Dáil a few days ago, said:—
"It has been found time and time again that Bills passed through the legislative assembly with the intention of effecting certain changes in the law have been found subsequently to do nothing of the kind."
That statement, in a limited sense, might be applicable to these Bills dealing with the Oath, but only to a limited extent. They have been passed with the intent, not of changing the law, because, as I shall argue in a moment, the present Government have never yet faced up to dealing with the fundamental law upon which these matters rest; but for the purpose of humbugging the people into the belief that they were changing the law. They have done nothing of the kind. They have neither changed the law nor humbugged that intelligent section of the people which understands what is afoot into believing that they have achieved what they have professed to do.
This claim of the Government to have got rid of the Oath seems to me to be very questionable indeed. The claim of the Government that they have got rid of the law dealing with the Oath is somewhat similar to the claim of the burglar that he has got rid of the law against theft when he ignores that law. The law is still there, whether it is ignored or defied. This law dealing with the Oath is still part of the fundamental law of this State, whether the Government ignore it, defy it or attempt to nullify it. The Treaty, including the Oath, is still the law of this State.
I raised this point on the Second Stage of, I think, the Constitution (Amendment No. 21) Bill. I argued the point, and the Minister in charge of the Bill—the Minister for Lands and Forestry—was either unable or unwilling to rebut my contention. He remained silent on the point then and since. If my contention be correct, there is a very serious and important issue involved and, possibly, an awkward constitutional impasse is being created by the procedure which the Government have seen fit to adopt. If the Treaty, including the Oath, still remains the law and that law prescribes certain procedure as requisite and essential to qualify persons to act as legislators in the Saorstát and to give validity to their acts as such, are the decisions which are made in the Oireachtas binding in law if the persons making them, or any of such persons making them, fail to comply with the procedure prescribed by the law to qualify them to act as legislators? If not, are not all the decisions of the Dáil, since a certain Deputy participated by vote in its proceedings who had failed to comply with these provisions, prescribed by law, lacking in validity? That is an important matter. It is a matter which may possibly involve the citizens of this State in serious constitutional difficulties. We should not lightheartedly assent to steps which may have that sequel. I put that point of view forward, not because I consider that my opinions on legal or constitutional matters carry any great weight, but because I think it is a consideration which should not go unrecorded when such matters as this are being discussed by the Parliament of this State. While I am not pressing my dissent from this proposal to a division—there are obvious reasons why it would be futile to do that—I want to have my dissent placed on the records of this House. I want to make clear that, in my opinion, this Bill represents another phase of the continued effort of the Government, I shall not say to scrap the Treaty—they have not faced up to that yet—but to nullify the Treaty, to indulge in a species of bootlegging a Republic into the Saorstát under the protection and the prestige of the British Commonwealth. As such, I consider it represents an unmanly attitude. It is a form of political subterfuge which is unworthy of any State and, especially, of a State whose spokesmen occasionally take upon themselves to lecture the world on how countries should be run. I think that this Bill represents a step by the Government which should be resented, and I want my dissent placed on the records of the House.
