I am bringing it in for the information of Deputies so that they will understand all the circumstances. As I said, Mr. Tuohy was an organiser in the employment of the Association, and because a recommendation had been made which implied, at any rate, that the Irish Fishermen's Association might get a grant from the Government, the Ministry of Fisheries could be considered to be in a position in which they could exercise very considerable pressure on the Association. The letter is as follows:
Dear Mr. Lynch,—Not having the opportunity of discussing the position re Recommendation 13 of the Conference over with you, as requested in my letter of the 3rd inst., I am putting on paper the situation as it appears to me. On going to the Department some weeks ago to inquire as to the prospects of implementing the Interim Report, Mr. Rush met me with an oral message from you to the effect that, "while I, personally, was to be treated with courtesy, I was, if I called, to be informed that you had given instructions that so long as the Irish Fishermen's Association employed Mr. Tuohy the Department was to have no dealings with it." No reason was given, but on inquiry elsewhere I found that Mr. Tuohy had spoken against your election for Kerry. I thereupon wrote to you to explain that Mr. Tuohy's action was in no way authorised by the Committee of the Association, and that he was, in fact, on unpaid leave of absence. I did this in the hope and, I may say, the expectation that when this was made clear the embargo on "dealings" with the Association would be raised.
You replied to the effect that you had never supposed I had anything to do with Mr. Tuohy's activities, and that you were sure I should understand and appreciate your action. I found myself unable to do so. I could understand that Mr. Lynch, as a private individual, might resent so strongly the opposition offered to his re-election by Mr. Tuohy, that he might refuse to have any dealings with the latter, in his private capacity, but I found myself quite unable to understand how Mr. Lynch, as Minister for Fisheries, whose function it was to promote the fishing industry, could refuse to have any dealings with an Association having the same object, an Association which, during my Presidency, had maintained amicable relations with the Department, and which, in the opinion of a conference appointed by the Minister, had done such valuable work, that it was unanimously considered deserving of a Government subsidy to enable it to carry on the work in which it was engaged.
As you had only referred to my position in your reply, I wrote again to point out that not only I, but the Association, had no responsibility for Mr. Tuohy's action, and that, though the latter had felt that when he was on unpaid leave of absence, he was at full liberty to exercise his undoubted rights as a citizen, I had spoken very strongly to him about it, because I felt that it was a very injudicious thing for him to do. Further, that I was in a position to assure you that, so far as the future was concerned and while he acted as Secretary and Organiser under the Association, you would have no reason to complain of want of cooperation on the part of the Association. In your reply, you adhered to your decision, giving as the reason, that Mr. Tuohy might be off duty and off pay on some future occasion, and might then repeat his attacks. This was not a reason I could accept as satisfactory. To my mind—and I wish to put it quite clearly—the only reason which could justify a Public Department in refusing to have any dealings with an Association would be, that the Association itself had, by its conduct of its business with the Department, put itself out of court.
As my object was to serve the interests of the industry, I, in replying, refrained from anything in the way of criticism, lest that might compromise the chances of coming to a satisfactory arrangement, and I discussed the matter with Mr. Tuohy before writing. We agreed that these interests would be best served by his resignation, and I wrote to inform you of this, going so far as to say that I did recognise that, holding the views that he did of the Department's activities in the past, it might be difficult to avoid friction if he remained in his post (for though confident that no friction would arise on our side, I felt that it might easily arise through action on the other side, a consideration which I did not then express, and only add now in justice to Mr. Tuohy).
It appeared to me that Mr. Tuohy's resignation must remove any possible objection you could otherwise have felt to implementing the unanimous Recommendation 13 of the Conference as to a State Subsidy. For it did not seem credible that you would first put pressure on the Association to dismiss Mr. Tuohy, and then, when you had attained your object, endeavour to break up the Association, by refusing to act on the Report of the Conference appointed by yourself. Yet that is the present position. For when, in the letter conveying the fact that Mr. Tuohy had written to me resigning his position, I put to you the same facts as those which I had put to the Conference—facts which showed that the Association could not carry on without a subsidy, facts which the Conference recognised were inevitable, and in consequence of which the Conference had unanimously recommended a subsidy. When I put these facts to you, explaining that I could not go on incurring fresh liabilities on behalf of the Association, but should have to resign if the refusal was persisted in, your reply was that in consequence of the "virtual demise" of the Association, you would not recommend the Minister for Finance to make a grant.
The next paragraph deals with matters concerning the implementation of Paragraph 13 of the Conference. As I said, I do not want to drag that matter across the matter contained in the question, and I will not read it. I would like to read the concluding portion, which states that: "Rightly or wrongly the fishermen have formed such an unfavourable opinion of the Department's policy and efficiency that any attempt on the part of the Department to organise them could only result in complete failure. Further, the action taken in regard to Mr. Tuohy, whose value they know so well, and whose devotion to their interests they appreciate so highly, together with the breaking up of the Association consequent on the refusal, if it be persisted in, to implement Recommendation 13, would create an atmosphere so antagonistic to the Department as to paralyse any efforts it made to benefit the industry."
I think from the facts as stated that it will be quite clear that the Minister for Fisheries was exercising his official capacity, his office as a Minister, to vent a personal and private spite which he held against Mr. Tuohy, who was an organiser of the Fishermen's Association. He did that although it had been pointed out to him by people in a position to make authoritative statements on the matter—a person like Professor Culverwell, for example—that the action he was taking was going so to antagonise the Irish fishermen towards the Department that the utility of the Department in the matter of benefiting the fishing industry would be destroyed. Subsequent to the date on which that letter was written there was another general election, and again Mr. Tuohy, exercising his undoubted rights as a citizen, went to Kerry and participated in the election there in opposition to Mr. Lynch.
