Deputy Lemass has given notice to raise a question on the motion for the Adjournment.
QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT. - COMPLAINT AGAINST LEITRIM CIVIC GUARD.
The question which I wish to raise for the purpose of a discussion is the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given to-day by the Minister for Justice concerning two cases of assault and intimidation by members of the Civic Guard in the County Leitrim. The replies given by the Minister to the questions concerning these two cases bear on the face of them, I suggest, the evidence of guilt. They were prepared, as the Minister informed us, by the actual men who were charged with having committed the assault in one case, and of being guilty of intimidation in the other. In order to prove that what I say is correct, I would like to remind the House and the Minister of his reply. In the first case, that of Mr. Thomas Shanley, of Dromod, Co. Leitrim, he alleges that a member of the Civic Guards visited his house on the night of October 15th and threatened him with violence if, at any time in the future, he was seen outside his own house or met on the public road. The Minister, anxious to find out the truth about this case no doubt after the question had been put down, made inquiries. He informed us that an inspector of the Civic Guards called at Mr. Shanley's house but was refused admittance. I do not wonder that he was unable to get any information.
MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)
No person in the house would give any information or assistance of any kind.
took the chair.
And that, consequently no doubt, he was compelled to get his information from the only remaining source—that is the member of the Civic Guards concerned. The reply given was that Mr. Shanley did receive a visit from a detective officer on the evening of the 15th of October. The detective officer was engaged in making certain inquiries about the peace of the district, and consequently he called upon Mr. Shanley. He was making inquiries concerning the peace of the district.
And he thought that Mr. Shanley would be able to give him some information and so he paid him a polite visit. It is not stated whether his inquiries were satisfactorily answered. The truth of the matter, as it can be vouched for not only by Mr. Shanley but by his father who was present as well as by certain other members of his household, is that his house was raided the week prior to October 15th by two members of the Civic Guards, and a member of the detective division. I do not know if the Minister would like that I should give their names.
I am quite indifferent.
Sergeant FitzGerald was in charge of the party, and the detective was a gentleman named McCarthy, a native of Co. Cork—they even get as far as County Leitrim. After the raid on Mr. Shanley's house, a report of the proceedings appeared in a certain weekly journal published in Dublin called "An Phoblacht." Whatever appeared in that report—I did not see it—the very fact of its appearance thoroughly annoyed this detective officer, McCarthy, and that was the real reason for his second visit to Mr. Shanley's house. Mr. McCarthy inquired of Mr. Shanley as to who sent the report to "An Phoblacht" and threatened him with violence if he gave any more publicity to their action. Mr. Shanley replied that he would give equal publicity to any similar action which occurred in the future. This Detective Officer McCarthy, who we are told called on Mr. Shanley in the course of making inquiries concerning the peace of the district, told Shanley that he would kick him around the street and leave him in a way in which he could do no more writing. He would break him up, he said, and warned him not to be seen outside his own door in the future, and that he would keep him indoors for the rest of his natural life.
And the Deputy believes all that?
I am prepared to believe it on the word of Mr. Shanley and of his father and other members of his household who were present. Against their word you have only the word of the detective officer concerned in whose obvious interest it is to give a false answer. I suggest that he did give a false answer. He would be leaving himself open to the loss of his position and a possible criminal action if he did otherwise. My belief is that he did give a wrong answer, and that is borne out by all the circumstances. The other case to which I wish to refer occurred on the same night. Mr. McCarthy's anxiety to preserve the peace of that particular part of the Free State was apparently very strong that night, because he found that something of a very suspicious nature was happening that night in the village of Dromod. There was an Irish class in progress in the village. Certain gentlemen, including this Mr. Shanley, attended the Irish class that night for the purpose of acquiring a knowledge of Irish which, as we have seen from the debate that concluded a short time ago, is likely to be necessary for persons seeking appointments in this State in the future. The gentlemen, with an eye to their future prospects, were engaged in the work of making themselves conversant with the Irish language.
Was that their only motive?
The Minister said that on the night of October 15th the movements of Seán O'Farrell, the gentleman mentioned in the Question, attracted the attention of the detective officer. His movements were suspicious. The assembly of a number of young people learning the Irish language attracted the attention of the detective officer. Detective-officer McCarthy was doubtless very zealous concerning the peace of that particular part of the Free State, and he proceeded to make investigations. If he wished to interview Mr. O'Farrell, or any member of the Irish class, he could have done so after the class was over. He did not wait, however, until the class was over. He entered when the class was in progress. The fact of his entrance and of other circumstances relating to his entrance can be vouched for by every person present. There are a number of witnesses concerning every portion of this particular case.
The Minister, in his reply, said that the detective officer, a nice, polite man, called on Mr. Shanley in the course of his inquiries and approached Mr. O'Farrell and asked him to accompany him to the local police barracks. There must be an implication in that that Mr. O'Farrell refused to go, but Mr. O'Farrell himself was not under that impression. He was under the impression that he was under arrest and that he was taken under arrest to the local police barracks, where this particular detective officer asked him to account for his movements during the day. Mr. O'Farrell refused to do so, and I think was quite within his rights. McCarthy thought otherwise, because he immediately retaliated by striking Seán O'Farrell in the face with his clenched fist, and followed this up by a severe beating on the face and head. After he had been assaulted the first time, Mr. O'Farrell called-upon the sergeant of the barracks. Sergeant FitzGerald entered the room and remained in it for the rest of the occurrence, but he said nothing and did nothing. Seán O'Farrell was beaten and knocked into a corner. He was continuously assaulted on the face and head by this detective officer. Then McCarthy got tired punching his head and produced a revolver, and proceeded to threaten what he would do to him if he would not answer his questions. Mr. O'Farrell refused to answer his questions After one and a quarter hours, during which time he was being almost continuously assaulted, Mr. O'Farrell was turned out on the road. He was turned out with this threat ringing in his ears from McCarthy, that some night or another his bullet-riddled body would be found on the roadside, and with the threat that every time he met him on the road he would kick him home again. The Minister, in his reply, said he was informed that there was no ground for the allegation that Mr. O'Farrell was assaulted or seriously beaten. I am not sure what the implication of that remark is, whether he means that he was not assaulted and beaten, or was not assaulted and seriously beaten. There must be some qualification there in any case.
The fact that O'Farrell was beaten can be vouched for by every person in the class who saw him assaulted, and who saw him after his release from the barracks. A number of people saw him. For days later his face was bruised and cut, and he was practically unable to eat owing to a dislocation of the jaw. Does the Minister seriously believe that crimes of this kind, which can be vouched for by a number of people in that district, cannot happen just because persons in the Civic Guards say they do not happen? Ministers boast about their success in restoring law and order, as they call it, in this country? Does that law they talk of mean the law of the bully in uniform, a man who goes around the town and arrests anybody he fancies to arrest, assaults him in the barracks and turns him out again, and never during the whole course of the proceedings gives him a word of justification for that action. Was there any charge against Seán O'Farrell, or any reason to believe he was committing a criminal offence when he attended the Irish class? Were any orders issued by the superior officers of the Guards to arrest and assault this man? Is it not a fact that the Civic Guards got a sudden burst of zeal on this particular night, and went on a rampage around the district threatening and assaulting?
We have had many cases of raids by Civic Guards during the past few days, and perhaps the Minister will tell us, what he has not told us, whether these are to be attributed to similar bursts of zeal on the part of MacCarthy's colleagues in other parts of the country, or are they acting on a concerted plan? Does that plan include Mr. O'Farrell, one time an elected Deputy for Leitrim? On Monday last a member of this House, Deputy Corkery, was raided in Cork. Was that part of a plan? It is all tending to justify the belief which members of this Party hold, and which many people throughout the country hold, that this detective division of the Civic Guards is being kept in existence to ensure that the spirit of the civil war will not die, and that conditions will be maintained which will enable the Free State Government to play its trump card at elections and to secure its return by a majority.
We have heard a great deal——
rose.
If Deputies want to hear the Minister's reply, I must point out that he has only five minutes in which to give it.
Getting up and making charges and not giving an opportunity to reply is very often happening, and it is not playing the game. We have heard a nice lot of pleasant rhetoric from Deputy Lemass in the last few minutes, rhetoric which we heard earlier in the day, and which was possibly more suited to the debate this afternoon. It seemed to me to be waste of time to-night. Deputy Lemass started off by saying that the report furnished to me was prepared by the actual man against whom the charge was made. The Deputy, as far as I can gather, says there is only one detective officer and only one charge. That officer did not prepare the report. The report I have received, and on which I have acted, is a report prepared by the superior officers who had gone into this matter. Deputy Lemass talked about the young man Shanley. He told us that Shanley's house was visited and that Shanley in his own house in the presence of his father was threatened. I would like to know, if that is the case, why Shanley's people would not give any information when a visit was paid by an officer to investigate the charges? They will give no information. If these charges are true, why will they not give them to the officer?
If these gentlemen go to the trouble of coming here to see Deputy Lemass, or getting an intermediary to interview Deputy Lemass, why are they tongue-tied in the presence of the police officers? If there is any truth in this charge why do they refuse to give information? Deputy Lemass, an astute debater, slides over that. Deputy Lemass told us that Shanley was told he was not to leave his house, and that he was to stay the rest of his natural life in his house. That occurs in the afternoon of the 15th. Where do we discover Shanley on the night of the 15th? Not in his own house, not cowering in fear because he is subject to what Deputy Lemass calls the law of the bully in uniform. Not at all. We discover this gentleman nicely off attending an Irish class in the town of Dromod. That is the story we are asked to believe. It is absolutely watertight, absolutely to be believed. And here is Shanley, as Deputy Lemass very candidly remarked, attending an Irish class, not out of love for Irish evidently, but for what seems to be the reason given by Deputy Lemass, that this young man and the other persons attending the Irish class thought they could turn a knowledge of Irish into £ s.d. If these are the sort of gentlemen who take up Irish because they can cash it, then that is a very poor type of procedure. I come on to the second case, the charge which was brought against this same officer with reference to an alleged assault upon Mr. O'Farrell. The Deputy says he was brought to the barracks and that he was hammered there for an hour and a quarter and that he came out with a dislocated jaw.
I did not say dislocated jaw.
What did the Deputy say? That he could not eat for several days as his jaw was dislocated. I suppose little details do not matter. The Deputy has been loosely briefed, or he has not gone to the trouble of carefully reading his brief. The Deputy probably does not believe very much in the case or he would read it more carefully. This gentleman, Mr. O'Farrell, who is supposed to have been hammered for an hour and a quarter, comes out in a terrible condition. This happened in the barracks. He was undoubtedly in the barracks and this attack was supposed to have been made in the barracks. There was not simply one particular officer in the barracks but there were others, and according to the report which I have received, and which I accept, that man was not assaulted in the barracks. He made no complaint on leaving the barracks of having been assaulted. If this man has been assaulted, or has been in any way molested, if a criminal offence has been committed by these Guards by assaulting him, then the courts of the country are open for this man to go into. The proper course for him is to take proceedings and to go into these courts.
That is the reason he was beaten, because he would not go into them.
Mr. Boland is a man of tremendous genius. He overwhelms himself. He tells us the man will not go into the courts, but we are to hold a police inquiry in which everything is to turn on his evidence. Then Deputy Boland and Deputy Lemass will say this gentleman is of the mentality that he will attend a police inquiry into the conduct of the Civic Guards, and be examined on oath, but that he will not bring a civil or criminal action against them.
Does the Minister want this thing continued throughout the country, or does he want the truth?
What thing?
These assaults by Guards on people.
When assaults are committed on people by the Guards then, as I said to-day, these Guards are invariably punished.
Does the Minister want to get the truth in this case? Is he prepared to set up an inquiry?
I am not until a prima facie case is put forward.
If the Minister looks at the faces of the two Leitrim Deputies behind him he will know that the charge is a well-founded one.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday at 3 o'clock.