One of the precedents which the Deputy quoted was the precedent created when we were dealing with the Railways Amalgamation Bill. I knew, at the time, it was an unfortunate precedent, and that it would be used as a precedent in other measures by other promoters, or perhaps I should not say by other promoters, but by the same interests in other aspects. But there was, of course, the contention in respect of that precedent that a certain value was given by the Southern Railways. I do not know that anything is suggested in reference to this Bill that certain value is being given. The other precedent which the Deputy quoted was the precedent of the Carlingford Lough Commissioners, and I think it is just as well to emphasise the value of that precedent. In the course of the proceedings before the Joint Committee this question was raised, and one of the Counsel having been invited to produce evidence of the precedent gave this information. He said:
"I have here a memorandum from the Marine Department of the London North Western Railway Company dated the 7th January, 1905. in which the matter is discussed."
Then he quotes the Provisional Order:
"The appointment of the Commissioners shall be regulated as follows: the following four persons are hereby appointed Commissioners namely, William Forster, Richard Allen Minuitt, Edward Tipping, and Richard Mayne."
And the section continues to say that:
"The remainder of the Section deals with the appointment of Commissioners by the Newry Navigation, the Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway Company, etc."
Evidence in that regard was tendered in the form of a memorandum from the London North Western Railway. The Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway Company is an off-shoot owned by the London Midland and Scottish, or, as it then was, the London and North Western Railway Company. Whatever may have been the justification in those days, and I do not think it was very great, does not apply now. There has been a change in the national relations. Saorstát Eireann is independent in respect of such matters as this of the British Government, and the London and North Western Railway Company or the L.M. & S., as it is now, have no special claim to have any rights in respect of public authorities or quasi-public authorities such as port and harbour boards in Ireland. The same company, it is contended, has a right to appoint commissioners in respect of the Carlingford Lough which includes Newry and I think includes Greenore, and that is adduced as a reason for giving the same company the same rights in respect of Dundalk. The Deputy supports his contention by saying that if the interests of the railway company and the interests of the harbour board came by any chance into conflict it would be an advantage to have a commissioner of the railway company in consultation with the harbour authority as a member of that harbour authority.
I want to put the contrary case—the possibility of conflict of interests between Dundalk and Newry or Dundalk and Greenore. If the railway company's interests favour certain concessions in regard to Greenore, as by chance they may, or Newry, as by chance they may, they balance by having one commissioner a nominee of their own on the Carlingford Board and another on the Dundalk Board, and the interests of the company are going, as far as the commissioners can provide, to be exerted in favour of whichever the company would desire, and if Dundalk's interests were opposed to the company's interests in relation to Greenore or Newry then the interests of the nominee of the company on the Dundalk Board would be against Dundalk. The idea that this is merely a private arrangement affecting a private concern is quite false. As a matter, I suppose, of convenience, Bills of this kind, which are partially private but mainly public, have been referred to Private Bills Committees, and it is contended that because the interests of private people may be under discussion and arrangements come to between private people then the public interest as affected must not be brought into play, and that the private agreement must be allowed to prevail. I contend in the main this is a public and not merely a private measure dealing with private affairs. The proposal to give a right to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company to appoint a commissioner on the Dundalk Harbour Board, as it has a right to appoint a commissioner on the Carlingford Harbour Board, as it has a right to appoint a commissioner on the Great Southern Railways, and as it will attempt to claim a right to representation on every other of a similar kind of Board that promotes private Bills in the future, is, I contend, a thing that ought not to be countenanced. It was done in 1864, in the middle of the last century, when they were discussing the Carlingford Lough Commission. It was done, unfortunately, in respect to the Southern Railway. Do not let us repeat that mistake in respect of the Dundalk Port Bill. At any rate this is not a private limited company.