I gave notice to-day that I would raise, on the motion for the adjournment, the dismissal of Mr. Maguire, a civil servant. When I raised this case at question time yesterday, I was given very considerable latitude in asking supplementary questions, but yet I feel that the position has not been made clear. I am not satisfied that the man whose case I am raising has been fairly treated. The facts are that Mr. Maguire was a civil servant with 25 or 26 years service. He was practically the whole of that time in London. About the year 1923 he was brought over here, I think, at the request of the late General Collins. He took up work in the Dublin Post Office as a sorter, and was afterwards promoted to the Secretary's office. On 13th December, 1924, he was dismissed by order of the Executive Council. The order dismissing him reads:—"The Ministry of Finance is instructed by the Executive Council to inform you that you are instantly dismissed the public service, and you are now therefore relieved of duty."
From that date until yesterday he has had no intimation of the charges that were made against him. He has never seen the evidence on which he was dismissed, and he claims that the charges made against him were made for personal reasons. He further claims that the people who are likely to have made the charges against him have since been found out, as it were, and have been dismissed themselves from any positions they held at the time, and have been entirely discredited. That would lead one to believe that the evidence forthcoming against him was evidence that was rather badly tainted and could not be relied on. The President, yesterday, in his reply, said that the Executive Council found the performance of their duty in dismissing this official a very painful one, and that for that reason he had a very fair and impartial trial. I am suggesting to the President that there is the possibility, and perhaps more than the possibility, that the Executive Council made a very serious mistake in this case. There is the fact that this man denies absolutely the charges outlined in the President's answer yesterday. He denies that he was guilty of any attempt to overthrow the State. He has made, and still makes, the demand that he should be heard in his own defence, and then he will be willing to accept whatever verdict is come to. Yesterday, when dealing with the case, I stressed the point that if this man had been a civil servant in Ireland before the Treaty was passed, he would have had very considerable protection under Article X of the Treaty. The President replied, and very properly no doubt, that Article X did not absolutely define the position of any civil servant.
When you bear in mind the fact that this man claims to have carried out his work properly, and to have done nothing as a citizen that he was not entitled to do, I suggest that if he had been in employment in this country as a civil servant at the time of the Treaty the decision so hurriedly come to in his case would not, I imagine, have been arrived at so quickly Admitting that he was dismissed in connection with the Army troubles, I would like to come back to what happened then. The House will remember that the Army troubles took place in March of 1924, but this man was not dismissed until December, 1924. I can understand the action of the Executive Council at that time, because all of us who were here will remember the position pretty well. We can understand that quick action had to be taken in a matter of that kind, but action was not taken in this case until seven or eight months had passed, and it is rather hard to understand how that man, going into his office in the morning to perform his work, should receive a notice that he was instantly dismissed. I am making the point that this man's activities, allowing that they called for some action, were not, and could not have been, of so serious a character that action of this kind should be taken instantly. I am suggesting to the President that the security of the State could not be endangered by having this case investigated at the time. I am also suggesting that it was within the discretion of the Executive Council or this man's superiors to suspend him and tell him that certain charges had been made against him, that he would get an opportunity of answering them, and that he was suspended until he could disprove them.
Another aspect of the case is that he spent twenty-six years in the Civil Service and he is now in very poor health. As a matter of fact, he is a physical wreck, and were it not for this particular matter, in the ordinary way, he would be now enjoying the pension he probably looked forward to as the result of long service. I submit that the proper thing to have done would have been to allow this man the option of retiring on pension, or in the alternative to allow him to return to the service in England, where he came from. He may not have gone there, but I think he ought to have been given the option of going back. He is walking the streets of Dublin at the present time, sad to relate, practically penniless and absolutely broken up.
I am raising this question for no other reason than to try and have the case of this man cleared up. He is a native of the constituency I represent, and I feel that I would be lacking in my duty as a representative of that constituency if I did not endeavour to secure the fullest investigation of his case and the fullest measure of justice for him. I am not defending the action of any man engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the State. I think there could be no defence of such action. He contends that he took no part in any such action. He has been willing at all times to defend himself against a charge if made against him, and he is willing to give any undertaking that he might be called on to give. I referred yesterday to the procedure adopted by the English authorities when dealing with political cases. A copy of the charges is sent to the person accused, and he is asked to reply. I think you have in the Department that this man was dismissed from, a remarkable case of the kind, the case of the Secretary, Mr. P. S. O'Hegarty. I think that was the procedure adopted in his case, and also in the case of Mr. Diarmuid O'Hegarty, who was dismissed from the Civil Service, and who is now Secretary to the Executive Council. I respectfully suggest that that procedure might have been adopted in this case, more especially because he was a man who had given—I think there will be no question about this—very considerable service to the country. I know in the part of the country that I come from, Sam Maguire was known 25 years ago as a man who was working in the interests of this country, and he worked under very considerable difficulties. Coming from the class he did, perhaps he might be excused for not giving the service that he gave to the country, but all the time, by reason of the position he was in, he gave very considerable service, and was one of the people who did a very big lot in helping to set up this State. I am not going to refer to that matter further. The facts in connection with that aspect of the case are very much better known to the members of the Executive Council than they are to me.
I will come now to another aspect of the case. In connection with the Army troubles you had a large number of Army officers dismissed. It is a fact that at the present time a great number of these people, if not all of them, are enjoying Army pensions. I am not objecting to that. I think it is right that the bitterness that existed at the time should be wiped out. I am only mentioning that matter to point out that that policy could have been followed with very good effect in this case also. During the civil war many civil servants and other public officials were taken in arms in this country. In the case of national teachers, some of them are now back in their schools. I am not quarrelling at all with that decision. I am quarrelling because that line of action has not been followed in this particular case. I do appeal to the President and the Executive Council to be as generous in this case as they were in other matters. They were generous in extending an amnesty to their opponents by resolution of the Executive Council some time ago, and they have been generous in awarding pensions to people who took up arms against them, and who were wounded in the struggle which took place prior to the civil war. I am asking, with all the sincerity I can command, to have this case reconsidered before it is too late, and if this man is not to go to his grave a sour and embittered man. Even if there is any doubt in the case, I ask the Executive Council to reconsider it, and give the man the benefit of any doubt there is.
Before I sit down I would like to refer to our discussion yesterday when the precedent that this line of action might give rise to was pointed out. If it is followed out unduly and if other people than the present Government come into power and if men are dismissed because of actions they might have taken or because of views they might have held it will not be for the benefit of the Government or the benefit of the country. It will be a dangerous headline for other people, perhaps less responsible, who will follow the Government in charge of this country. This man feels that he has not got a fair trial; he feels that he has a reasonable answer to put up to the charge or charges that are made against him and if in future people are dismissed as a result of their political activities perhaps the position that has been created now will not be for the benefit of this Government or for the benefit of the Civil Service, because, after all, efficiency—and it was admitted yesterday by the President that this man was highly efficient—is rather the biggest consideration that can be mentioned in connection with the Service. I repeat the appeal I made yesterday to the President that there are two aspects of this case that might be considered; one is that if there are charges made against this man he has not had an opportunity of answering them, and even if the Executive Council will not adopt the policy of putting this man in possession of the details of the charges made against him and even if they feel that there is a certain doubt as to whether he did things, surely they might have given him the benefit of the doubt, if they are to save his body in the grave from being a reproach to their administration.
