Very good, Sir; although the names are mentioned in the Press, I shall avoid giving them here now, and if any Senator wishes to follow the matter up, he can find out the names in the newspapers, because I think it would be better not to mention here the names of the particular individuals concerned. At any rate, in the report it was mentioned that a certain man said that he had been offered a substantial sum in cash for his vote. This matter was investigated by the Gárda Síochána in the district, and the person concerned had to admit to the member of the Gárda Síochána who called upon him in connection with the matter that he had not been offered anything for his vote in the recent election but stated that, in the 1938 election, he had been approached by a certain man, whom he named, and who, he alleged, offered him £50 on condition that he voted for a certain party. It then appeared, however, that the person whom he mentioned was two years dead!
The second report referred to a meeting of the Longford County Council. I think it was reported that three members of the Longford County Council had indicated that they had information to the effect that money had been offered for votes for candidates for the Seanad. The three members in question were communicated with—I have a copy here of the letter that was sent to them—and the first person to whom one of these letters was sent denied that he had been offered any money for his vote, and said that the report of his remarks at the county council meeting was false and misleading. The second person who was communicated with stated that that was what he had been told, and that he was not going to inform on anybody. The third person referred the matter back to the first person. Now, that is where you get in a case of this kind. Here you have the case of three people in the Longford County Council who are alleged to have made these remarks with regard to the offering of bribes. The first man denies that he was ever offered any money. The second man says that he was told that such a thing had happened, but that he was not going to inform on anybody; and the third person refers back to the first person, who denies being offered any money.
The next case that I have here is concerned with a meeting of the Kilkenny County Council, at which the following statement was made. One man—talking about bribery and corruption—stated:
"I was offered £50 for my vote. In my 30 years of public life I was never bought for any money or for anything else."
A letter, along similar lines, was sent by the Department of Justice to the person who spoke in that manner, but, so far, no reply has been received. Now, that is the result of examination by the Department of Justice in their attempt to follow up these cases. I do not know whether there is anything further that the Department of Justice can do. Actually, I am rather sorry that there is no way of punishing people who make statements of that kind, and who are not prepared to stand over them afterwards, or who are not prepared, at least, to show that such statements, even though they may be proved afterwards to be false, were made in good faith. According to my information, there is no way of getting after such people. I understand that there is some law to deal with people who are causing public mischief or damage, but I am afraid that that law is too narrow in its implications to deal with the type of people that I have in mind here.
Some Senators have pointed out that there might be a way of dealing with that kind of thing if a tribunal of some sort were set up, before which public-spirited people would come forward to give evidence; but why will they not come forward and give evidence now in the ordinary way, if they have such evidence? There is an ordinary way to deal with such matters. Such people can say: "Very well, I have evidence to give, and I am prepared to give it now." I think that I need not assure the House that if the Attorney-General and the Government can get such evidence, they will be only too glad to avail of it. But we find ourselves in the position in which these rumours are spread, and, as I said on another occasion, with regard to the old saying that where there is smoke there is fire, neither I nor the Government can say, with regard to rumours of this kind, whether there is any fire behind the smoke. Perhaps there is, but I cannot tell.
But we have no means, unless we get evidence, of finding out, and we have got, therefore, into the position that this tribunal which it is proposed should be set up, could not do any effective work. It is something unknown to our present method of procedure. Are we then, for instance, to set up this tribunal which will bring before it these men who have made statements and examine them on oath? What are we to do with them? If they say, as they have said, that it is a false and misleading report, what are we to do with them? I do not know if there is any way in which we can prove an offence if they simply tell the tribunal what they have said, that the report is misleading, that they did not say that, and have no evidence of any kind. I do not know how we are going to prosecute, or if there is any punishment. You cannot force them, particularly if it is a statement which would implicate themselves. I do not know what cautions we would have to give them beforehand if there was inquiry of this sort. If it came to a point which showed very definitely that the Attorney-General should be informed, I do not know whether the tribunal should suspend its operations while criminal proceedings were being taken, because all these acts or corrupt practices are criminal offences. But, I am afraid, anxious as I would be to have this probed open, that I have to say, like every Senator after the proposer and seconder, that there is no way open in which we can do it. It is not a judicial investigation—it is a probing investigation—and the Department of Justice, in so far as they can probe, are the only people who can do it. But, they cannot do it until they have some particular type of evidence on which they can take action.
Therefore, I must agree with Senators who have spoken against this motion on the grounds of its uselessness. It would serve no good purpose, and I have to recommend the Seanad not to accept it, but I do that with reluctance from one point of view, because I think it would be of great value if we were able to do away with those things and to find somebody who is guilty and have him punished properly, or else be able to clear the House, if possible, of the insinuations made. I do not think that is possible. It was pointed out that if we set up a tribunal, everybody would take his own view as to the personnel of the tribunal—what were the leanings of the people appointed, and so on.
I am not saying that is a major difficulty. We could get over it, but there are certain things we cannot do, and no matter what the findings of an inquiry were, you would not satisfy people who would believe rumours. If a tribunal were set up to investigate the matter and said: "We have not been able to find anything," people would say: "It is there all the time." It has been suggested: "Why do you not get after it as you get after the black marketeers?" That reminds me of accusations against the Government in other directions. Some people think that methods used in one direction can also be applied in others. In the case of a black market, some inspector goes in and the people engaged in it do not recognise him. He gets overcharged, or obtains something which should not be available. You cannot do that in the case of an election which is over and gone.
Is it suggested that in the case of future elections we should send people around who would try to get people to bribe them or to accept bribes? I do not see how this black-market method of investigation can be applied to the thing at all. I think it is quite a different sort of offence you have got to get after. In the case of black market offences you have something concrete and definite to point out. In this particular matter you can be sure that if money passes, it is not likely to be passed by cheque. You have the difficulty of laying your hand on anything concrete that would satisfy any impartial court as being really evidence. I do not think that I should delay the House any longer. My only point is that I do not think that the proposer and seconder have given the matter any serious thought. If they did, I think they would have to come to the same conclusion as every other member who spoke after them. Certainly, it was the conclusion forced on us.
