I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 12 o'clock to-morrow.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE DAIL. - DUN LAOGHAIRE PIER AND STATION.
I gave notice that on the motion for the adjournment I would call attention to, and ask an explanation from the Ministry regarding a statement made by Prosecuting Counsel, Mr. Carrigan, K.C., in a case which appeared in the Central Criminal Court on Tuesday. A man was charged with the theft of goods at the station at Dun Laoghaire. He was prosecuted and found guilty. In the course of the charge Mr. Carrigan, speaking, no doubt under instructions, instructions which must have gone from the State Solicitor's office, stated, according to the report in the "Irish Independent": "The station and pier had become notorious for larcenies from passengers' luggage," and further, apart from the criminality of the affair, he said "it was a disgrace to Dublin and the country that strangers on their way to Dublin should have to pass through a file of rogues." One may take up a matter of that kind from the point of view of the effect upon passengers from other countries coming to Ireland via Dun Laoghaire, with the authority of the State Solicitor behind it. That would be bad enough, but I will leave that for other people to deal with. I am interested primarily in this matter because it is a charge against a considerable number of men, some of them State servants, others of them railway servants, who have been engaged at work on the station and pier at Dun Laoghaire for a long number of years and against whom there is not the slightest ground for such a sweeping charge made on the authority of the State Department. When a State Counsel speaks of passengers having to pass through a file of rogues he must be referring to the men engaged on their daily occupations on that pier. These men are seamen, railway servants, and Customs officials—that is the file of rogues referred to by the State Counsel. I am given to understand that so far from there being any basis for such a charge there has very seldom, if ever, for ten or fifteen years been any charge against a railwayman in that station. Perhaps one might go much further back than ten or fifteen years, but I for the moment, will leave it at that. The case in question could not have been brought to the courts except for the activities, and the assistance given in the detection of this offence, of the very railwaymen who are charged with being a file of rogues. For a statement of that kind to go out with the imprimatur of the Government, the Minister for Justice and his Department, is a libel on, and a slander against people concerned, and is a statement that will do great harm to the country because, as sure as anything is in journalism, that statement will be repeated in the English and American Press, and unless it is repudiated on behalf of the Government by a Minister of the Government and given the same publicity, then I say these men are going to suffer under an unfounded charge and the country in general is going to suffer a bad reputation, entirely undeserved. I hope not only will the Minister repudiate the statement, but that some call will be made upon those responsible for making it, whether it was on the definite instruction of the Solicitor's Department, or whether it was the action of initiative of the Counsel himself, and that some demand will be made from the Government benches that that statement shall be publicly withdrawn.
I can claim to have a very close and personal knowledge of the working conditions both at the pier and station at Dun Laoghaire, and from twenty years' experience of railway men, to have a good knowledge of each one of these 120 or 130 men upon whom this reflection has been cast as a result of the statement that has been made. I never in my experience read a statement that was made—and I am assured by officials who were in court that this is a correct report—with less justification that the one which Deputy Johnson has complained about. The fact of that statement being published in the "Morning Post" or "Daily Mail" or the American papers would have a very disastrous effect on the tourist traffic in this country. I have gone very closely into the statement, and I am assured, both from my own examination of the records and by people who have been working on the pier and station, that a prosecution has not taken place for forty years. There has not been any complaint worth speaking about from passengers, and surely there cannot be any complaint from the gentleman who made this unfounded charge under the protection of the courts of the Free State. I have very personal knowledge that Mr. Carrigan has received a degree of courtesy and consideration which ordinary passengers would not receive in the ordinary way. He is the last man in the world, from what I know and can prove, who should make a statement of this character. The railwaymen, like everybody else in this country, pay their share of taxation for the upkeep of the State, and part of the taxation paid by them goes to the prosecuting counsel who made this statement. I say that the funds of the Free State Government should not be paid to a man who makes such an irresponsible statement as the one I complain of. This charge, unfounded as it is, is a charge not alone against employees, who are responsible for the working of the station and pier to two companies, but also against the companies and their principal officials, and I think it is due to them that some reason should be given for the making of such a statement. I know it to be a fact that officials of those companies were in court on this occasion. Mr. Carrigan, in the course of his work as prosecuting counsel, could have called these officials and examined them as to what happened regarding this alleged pilfering, and he could have got evidence on oath to counter the statement he made. He should have taken that step, to make sure that there was some justification, before making that statement. I demand, on behalf of 130 men who were working there, and on behalf of the railwaymen as a whole, that a public apology should be given by the individual who made the statement or that some justification should be given to the railwaymen, and to this House, for making that statement. I hope that the Minister will repudiate that statement in fairness to all concerned, and that a public apology will be given for making this very slanderous and lying statement.
I admit that I missed reading this particular extract that appeared in the papers about this case and which has been read by Deputy Johnson. I must say that I regret very much that such a statement has been made in court, if it has, and I take it has, when it appeared in the Press. I do not know that any instructions were given by the chief State Solicitor that such a charge should be levelled. I do not think that instructions would have been given but if it was the case, I think that that would not be the method of dealing with it, but that other steps should be taken in regard to it and that you ought not brand every man, even if we concede for the sake of argument that there was more than one dishonest man there. It is in the interests of justice that the man who is guilty should be charged, but in justice to the rest of the men no such general statement should have been made about them. So far as my own experience goes, as well as that of others with whom I have come in contact, who have travelled by the boat and across the harbour way to the train, I have never heard any complaints concerning loss of property. It is inevitable that there should be loss, but that it should go out that there is such a condition of affairs that a person has to pass with property through a file of rogues is a gross exaggeration. I regret that the statement has been made and I will undertake to look into the matter and see what can be done to do justice to the men engaged there.
Has Deputy Davin any reason for stating that the statement had any reference to railwaymen, or is it that he read that into it?
I have this reason, and the President himself knows, that since the Customs arrangements came into operation passengers must pass through a file of railway servants and customs officials and this is the file of rogues referred to.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until Friday, July 4th, at 12 o'clock.