Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 25 Feb 1927

Vol. 18 No. 10

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 26—LAW CHARGES.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar Aon Mhíle Dhéag, Céad agus Ocht bpuint Seascad chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1927, chun costaisí Coir-Phróiseacht agus Dlí-Mhuirearacha eile maraon le deontas i gcabhair do chostaisí áirithe is iníoctha amach as rátaí áitiúla do réir Reachta.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding Eleven Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-eight Pounds be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1927, for the expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges, including a grant in relief of certain expenses payable by Statute out of local rates.

The purpose of this vote is to meet an amount which was advanced for a deposit in connection with the proceedings that are going on in America with reference to the Dáil funds. This sum has been carried as a suspense account in the Law Charge Vote for some time. It was expected that the proceedings would have terminated before this and that the amount would have been recovered. However, the proceedings are dragging on, and we have now reached a point where there will not be a surplus in the Law Charges Vote that would enable this to be carried over. Consequently, this supplementary estimate is being presented. There will possibly be a certain loss in the amount because of the exchange variations, but the amount will be recoverable. It was first put on deposit but has since been invested in United States 4¼ per cent. Liberty Bonds.

I think the Minister might give us a little more information on this matter. It has been before us from the point of view of advances towards expenses of law charges in connection with Dáil Funds, and it has not been always quite clear how much of it was likely to be in respect of litigation respecting Dáil funds in Ireland and how much in respect of litigation regarding Dáil Funds in the United States. There has been a considerable sum voted towards those expenses and there was some money spent, I think, before this form of estimate was presented to us. I think we ought to have some information from the Minister as to the total expenses up to date in America. What is the amount in question and what are the prospects of the litigation being concluded? It has been suggested by people competent to make a prophecy —people who have a knowledge of American law and conditions—that, bad as things are in these countries, they are much worse in America and that there is likely to be interminable expense, with very little for the successful party after the lawyers on both sides have been paid. I think the request for this £11,000 for deposit gives the Minister an opportunity, which he should take advantage of, to explain to us much more fully than he has yet explained the position in regard to these monies that are the subject of litigation in America. We voted in 1925-'26 £7,000, and considerably less than that was, I think, spent. In 1926-'27 we voted £5,800. I do not know how much of that was in relation to American expenditure and how much was in relation to Irish expenditure. Now we learn that the sums voted for expenses are almost depleted, and a proposal is made for paying £11,000 as a deposit. We ought to have some more information from the Minister as to what is likely to be the expense of the present phase of the American litigation. Is the hearing that is now in prospect to be the final and conclusive hearing, or is there the possibility of further expenditure in continuation of the proceedings between the parties concerned? One may also ask "Is there any possibility of arriving at a conclusion without a decision of the courts?" I would ask the Minister to give us more information in a general way on this question.

I should also like a little more information on this subject. The matter has been fairly fully reported in the Press, but it would be well that we should have an official statement from the Minister as to the position. I should like to know the exact amount involved, and I should like to know, in the event of the Saorstát succeeding in the law proceedings, to what purpose the funds are to be put. I should like to know if the finances of this State are at present responsible for the payment of interest on these bonds and if there is an accurate record of the holders of the bonds.

The only other aspect I want to refer to is that mentioned by Deputy Johnson as to the amount of money already spent, the possibilities of spending a still greater sum of money, and the question of whether it is considered reasonably worth while to persist in the case at all. Anyone with a knowledge of American law cases must be well aware that a great many cases which come into the hands of American lawyers are simply providing revenue for those lawyers, and that the litigants very often end up by having nothing. I do not suggest that that is confined to America, but it is accentuated with regard to American legal cases. The question arises whether we can justify a continuance of these votes.

I have not the figures at hand that would enable me to make a statement as to the amount heretofore expended in the litigation in America. The sum is a comparatively small one; it will not, if we succeed in our case, be such a serious consideration. Deputies have asked as to the prospects. I know nothing as to the prospects. I am advised that our case is a good one, and that we should win it. Whether we shall or not, I could not say unless I were a prophet. There is just this point in connection with it: when this litigation was started the question was of absolutely prime importance to the State. If the funds in America, some half a million pounds, had fallen into the hands of those waging war against the State, a tremendous amount of damage would have been done. The damage that would be done by the people laying claim to this at present might not be so great, but I certainly fear that if they were to obtain possession of those funds results highly deleterious to the prospects of the country would ensue. Apart from that, I think, as we have accepted responsibility in our Dáil Loan and Funds Act for the repayment of the amounts raised in America, we should obtain the bonds if we can. We are certainly advised that we have a good case and should win it. We would be bound to proceed with the case, even if the prospects now held out of a fairly speedy issue were not to be realised. I understand American litigation is liable to be exceedingly protracted, and I would not like to say that the trial just now about to take place would settle the matter. At any rate, we are moving to a definite stage in this particular litigation, and it is to be hoped that, if it is not finally disposed of in the next month, we will, before very long, get a final decision in the matter.

Has a similar amount been paid by the opposite side by way of deposit?

I do not think so. We are the plaintiffs in the matter, and we moved to restrain the banks from disposing of certain funds. They alleged they might be subject to certain losses and incur certain liabilities as a result of that. Application was made to the court with the result that we had to make a deposit to indemnify them against losses which might arise from delay in dealing with the funds. I understand that such losses will not arise and that the amount of the deposit, which had to be made hurriedly, will be recoverable.

I should like to know if the funds in connection with this matter were not collected prior to this Dáil being established. If the people who supplied the funds were asked if they were satisfied that their money should be transferred to the Free State Government instead of being devoted to the purpose for which it was originally collected, does the Minister think those people would give their consent? The Minister said he was sure the Saorstát would win. But if the Saorstát does not win will we have to bear the cost of all these proceedings? The Minister did not ask leave here to take proceedings against these parties. He did not come to the House to have the trustees changed, but he went to the courts, established by the present Government, and they had no alternative but to comply with the request.

This is a matter which, I presume, does not lend itself to discussion because it is sub judice. I should like to know, however, if the bonds in question attach to the money. Assuming that either party wins, are the bonds secured against this money or would the money be free money?

The bonds will be paid. We have assumed responsibility for them and they will be paid, irrespective of the issue of this suit. If the money is recovered it will be paid to the Exchequer.

On the other hand, assuming that we lose the case, would responsibility for the bonds be transferred to the people who win? In other words, is the fund so arranged that the money concerned is for the bonds and their redemption?

If the Court did not give us the money it might order that the people who got it should apply it to the redemption of the bonds. I say it might, but I am not sure. The amount of the funds now in existence is only a remnant of the total funds collected, so that it would not in any case pay off the bonds.

Could the Minister say what is the total amount concerned?

About half a million.

Motion put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn