I do not feel that I have very much to say about this measure but, at the same time, I think it will be generally agreed that no responsible member of this House could be put a more perplexing problem to-day than to decide what to do about it. On the one hand, all our human instincts sort of rebel against the request of the Government to confer these extraordinary powers upon them. From what we heard from the Minister yesterday, and from what he said up to the present, there does not seem to be great cause for the introduction of this measure. It may be that there is much more which the Minister might say. It would be better if he had told us if there are reasons, other than those he has given, why the Government is now asking for these powers, because the question that is at the back of my mind is: In what way will these powers be used when they are conferred upon the Government? I suppose they are being sought because of our past. As was said by other Senators yesterday regarding the Treason Bill, our past was a very strange one indeed, and the immediate past and the present are so closely linked up with the activities of the Minister's Party, that it is very difficult to argue that the conditions which confront him to-day are not conditions that he shared in the making of.
Listening to Senator O'Donovan telling the House, when speaking on the Treason Bill, that he had a certain attitude towards treason some time ago, but that his attitude had changed since the passing of the Constitution, No. 18. one got a peep into that type of mentality. A representative in this, or in the other House who can talk like that, and who has that attitude towards the State, is prepared to say, merely because of the fact that his Party has come to the top and secured a majority, that what was wrong yesterday becomes right to-day. That is the doctrine that was propagated some time ago, and even members of this House, by inference, propagate the same doctrine to-day. What one has to do then is to ask, will the measure be operated in a calm and impartial way? If one were satisfied that these extraordinary powers were to be exercised with discretion one might feel less uneasy. That is something about which I am not too satisfied. I suppose it is impossible to separate in one's mind the sort of action of the Government Party on various issues which have been raised in the past, and their attitude towards the application of the law and, indeed, certain other activities. There one finds the Minister making a declaration with which no one could quarrel. It was an acceptable statement. It seemed to be full of reason and all the rest, but somehow the application of these principles, at least from my experience, very frequently represent the point of view, not of sanity and levelheadedness that one expects from the Executive Council, but rather the extreme point of view of the narrow, bigoted experienced Party man, of which we have personal experience.
The operation of the law in the past can be pointed to as the cause of apprehension as to what may happen in the future. During the past five or six years I have had the experience myself that, as far as the protection of the law is concerned, it was denied to some and given to others. At public meetings I had the experience of not getting the protection of the law. I was entitled to have it but I did not get it, while I saw it being given to others side by side with me. I have had other experiences of the sort of injustice that the citizen qua citizen can get. In view of all that, one must have misgivings as to how this measure may be applied. The measure itself is no doubt very complete. It must be the most perfect public safety Bill that has ever been introduced in the Oireachtas. One feels inclined to say that the old poacher certainly makes a very good gamekeeper. I say that because the Minister seems to have made provision in this Bill for meeting every possible contingency.
On a historic occasion about ten years ago it was my duty, as a member of the Dáil, to vote for a measure something like this but not so extreme or far-reaching as this is. The conditions at that time were very different from those that prevail to-day. The problems that the State and its representatives had to face then were far different from what they are to-day. I am speaking of 1927 when, for the first time, I was called upon to give my approval or disapproval to a measure something like this. I can recall the conditions that existed then, and the reasons and the justification which were put before us as to why we should give the Ministry the powers they asked for. I confess that if the conditions in 1927 were the same as they are to-day, the Ministry of that day would not have been given the powers it asked for. One must remember that at that time one of the greatest men this country has produced, the late Kevin O'Higgins, had been assassinated. From some experience that I had immediately after his death, I should perhaps say that his was one of the greatest minds in the Europe of his time. I did not know him very well. I had had some experience of his sledge hammer blows when driving home his point of view in the course of Parliamentary debate, and was very frequently in conflict with his point of view.
After his death the leaders of the various political groups in the Dáil were invited to meet the then President of the Executive Council. I was one of the two from the Farmers' Party. Two others attended from the other two Parties, the Labour Party and the other Party. I should say that I was the youngest and most inexperienced of all those who gathered around the table of the President of the Executive Council on that occasion. It was put to us that the situation then existing was so grave that the powers we were asked to give were felt to be necessary. I urged that nothing of a panicky nature should be done: that to do anything of the kind at that particular moment, instead of steadying the country, might produce the contrary effect, and that bearing in mind the whole structure of the Government of the country, it might possibly be advisable to postpone taking any action. The others who were there did not subscribe to that point of view, at any rate with the vehemence that I did. In the course of our discussions the leader of the Labour Party put this question to Mr. Cosgrave: "What are you going to do about filling the Vice-Presidency?" Mr. Cosgrave answered: "That is going to be done the next day the Dáil meets: they may get me any day, and there must be some man to step into my shoes." That was the atmosphere in which our discussions were carried on around the table. The then President of the Executive Council meant what he said, and everybody there believed that he meant what he said: he looked it, and the others looked it too, and it was in those circumstances that we agreed on that particular day to give a general assent to the introduction of a measure which we were informed was necessary for the protection of the State and the Ministers of the State.
I am not going to go into the subsequent history or tell of the difficulties that confronted me when the Dáil met two or three days afterwards. The first thing I found was that the other Party leaders had changed their point of view, and that I, who had the least desire for the introduction of such a measure, was left alone to keep my word and carry on. But I remember this, and shall always remember it: that over hill and dale the people who are in the Government Party to-day pursued me for my support of that measure at that time: they pursued me ruthlessly and very successfully too, in the political sense. Now we find ourselves up against this situation to-day, very different indeed from the situation ten years ago. I say, thanks be to God, that the Minister of to-day is not required to make the plea that had to be made ten years ago for the measure then introduced. The Ministers of to-day have not the threat hanging over their heads that the Ministers of State had at that period. When I think of the great change that has come over the minds of those in the Fianna Fáil Party in the past ten years, and indeed within a much shorter period, I realise how their education has advanced, and what responsibility means to men, as well as what actions they are driven to take when responsibility is put upon them.
Perhaps I should say that all that has happened in this State has been for the best. As I said earlier, the old poacher certainly makes a good gamekeeper. I feel at any rate that the Minister is going very far indeed in asking for the powers enshrined in this Bill. I confess that when the Minister told us yesterday, with regard to the Treason Bill, that it was conceivable that the Attorney-General might proceed against people under some Act other than the Treason Act, it occurred to me that there must be many Acts of Parliament, comprising the ordinary law, which could be made use of effectively for dealing with many of the offences in this Bill. Because of that, the Minister will have to show more justification than he has done for the extraordinary powers he is seeking in this Bill before he will get my support for it.
I will make the Minister this concession, and it is to a certain extent repeating something I said in 1927, when I was, as I regarded, being very unfairly attacked in the Dáil by the men who had sat around the council table with me and had given assent to the introduction of the particular measure which we were discussing at that time. I indicated then that if there was general support on the part of the responsible leaders for a measure to protect the State and the Ministers of the State, it is possible to do with a less drastic measure than is perhaps necessary when you are faced with the opposition of a very large and perhaps violent majority. I will make the Minister this concession, and I think it only right to do so, that all of us who have been watching the course of this Bill through the other House appreciate the Minister's approach to the situation with which he, this House and the other House are confronted to-day. He certainly acted in a reasonable and fair way, and with an open mind. That, so far as I am concerned, has definitely influenced my attitude towards the measure. In other circumstances I would, I believe, have been active in opposing it, but when the Minister is prepared to be reasonable, as he was, one feels that one is not justified in being unreasonable.
Personally I do not believe in playing politics in a matter like this. I do not believe in behaving as other people have behaved in the past, to the detriment of the State and, indeed, to a certain extent discrediting their own reputations now when they look back on the general behaviour of those days. I do not believe that is in the best interests of the State. I have no desire whatever to capitalise the position in which I find myself to-day and in which the Minister is to-day. I do not think that, in the long run and taking the long view, that is the sort of line that any of us should pursue who feel that we have responsibilities to the State to make it more stable, to improve it, and to improve also the conditions of the people in it. On the other hand, I am not satisfied that the conditions in the country to-day justify the giving of these extraordinary powers to the Minister. The Minister, in my view anyhow, has not put before us sufficient evidence to warrant our giving these powers to him.
I will, however, say this, that the Minister certainly has information which is not at my disposal. He may have information of which he does not feel he should put the House in possession. If the Minister argues very strongly that this measure is necessary and requisite for the preservation of stable, peaceful conditions in the State, and the protection of the lives of Ministers and of the people of the State, I confess I have no answer to that argument. If he argues that strongly, and says that there are reasons other than those which he has given us, which he cannot give, for asking for these powers, I am not prepared to stand against him, but I confess that when I look back to the circumstances of other times, and to the attitude I had to take on another occasion, I am perfectly convinced that the conditions as they are to-day do not warrant the giving of these powers, if you make a comparison between conditions now and conditions as they existed ten years ago, when the Minister and all associated with him denounced very strongly and vehemently, and used all available means to prove that all and sundry who gave any support or countenance to the measure passed then did a foul deed and had blood on their hands which they could never wash off. I am not prepared, on the other hand, to stand as a sort of bush in the gap, if the Minister says he has no alternative but to get these powers, and that they are necessary and requisite for the protection of the State and the lives of the citizens. I would be prepared to give my active support to the measure, if I were satisfied by the Minister, as I was satisfied on another occasion, that it was necessary. He has not satisfied me yet.
