Deputy Ruttledge started off by saying that no economies had been effected in the administration of the Department and that a committee should be set up. Rather unfortunately, Deputy Little did not seem to have been listening to him, because he said some opportunity should be given to the House of seeing whether there was too much expenditure of public money in the Department. At the present minute they cannot form any such opinion. Deputy Ruttledge then is convicted by Deputy Little of merely talking sheer nonsense. The Economy Committee has examined into my Department as it has examined into every other Department in this State.
Deputies Ruttledge and Fahy made great play with what they called secret instructions which were sent out to District Justice by my Department. No secret instruction as to how a District Justice is to decide any case has ever been sent out by my Department. Deputy Ruttledge talked a great deal about the independence of the judiciary and said that Dublin justices were being told what to do. That statement is absolutely unfounded. The Deputy tried to base it upon a statement which was made in the District Court by a District Justice with reference to a circular sent out to District Justices by my Department. That circular was marked confidential. It was a document which it was our intention should reach the District Justice himself unopened by any other person. I am not ashamed of that document—I stand over it absolutely. What was it? It was a circular sent out by my Department as follows:—
The Minister for Justice thinks it proper to circulate for the information of the Justices of the District Courts the attached copy of a minute received from the Department of Agriculture on the subject of the penalties imposed for breaches of Section 1 of the Live Stock Breeding Act, 1925. The Minister for Agriculture has been informed that unless and until the law is changed the entire discretion and responsibility as to the proper penalty to be imposed in these cases must rest with the Justices dealing with the cases.
That is said to be secret instruction sent to District Justices telling them how they are to decide a case and what fines they are to inflict. We are told in the beautiful rhetoric of Deputy Ruttledge that we are making blatant, unfounded, tripy speeches about the independence of the judiciary. Using that elegant phraseology of the Deputy, I say that he made a blatant, unfounded, tripy attack on my Department when he described that document as being in any way an interference with the independence of the judiciary, since the very thing which it does point out is that the justices must use their own discretion.
Take the document which was sent out. It was to this effect: Certain laws have been passed by this House. In most matters the House thinks the laws passed should be effective. The magistrates in carrying out the law must decide as to what are the proper penalties to be imposed, so that the law will be effective. If crime becomes very common a large penalty is obviously necessary to stop it. If crimes are comparatively small in number large penalties may not be necessary.
To know the extent of the crimes which are being committed, to know the number of the crimes is most valuable to District Justices, in order that they may in their unfettered discretion decide what is the proper penalty to be inflicted. It was pointed out that under the Live Stock Breeding Act, and, to some extent also, under the Forestry Act, the penalties that were being inflicted were so small that they were not acting as a deterrent, and that offences of this nature were increasing. Is it not right that information should be placed at the disposal of the District Justices? Is it not the correct thing to do? In order that they might see that these particular offences were increasing, is it not right that these statistics should be placed before District Justices? To place these statistics before a District Justice is described by Deputy Ruttledge and Deputy Fahy as interference with the discretion of the District Justice. Has any more unfounded charge ever been made? Based on that, Deputy Ruttledge ventures to come along here and suggest that District Justices are being told how to decide individual cases and the penalties to inflict. He says that without a shadow of foundation. The statement is so utterly false that it seems to me very difficult to understand how a Deputy belonging to his profession and having the standing which he has, or ought to have, in this House, would come along, and without the slightest shadow of foundation, indulge in such language.
Deputies Ruttledge and Little went on to talk about the decrees given against detective officers. My views have been clearly stated before, and I will state them again now as clearly as I can. If members of the Gárda Síochána are dealing with a dangerous association, and if they consider that for the prevention of crime they should take certain steps, and, acting hastily as they must act, acting on the spur of the moment, as they must act, using their discretion, as they must use it, those men occasionally go too far, then the State is going to stand behind them.
On the other hand, as in the Waterford case where third degree methods were found by a jury to have been used, the State does not stand by that. That is a clear, definite distinction. If an officer of the Gárda Síochána, in the exercise of his discretion, happens to make a bona fide honest mistake, that man is going to have the State behind him. We are not going to have it in this condition: that for every single ruffian a Gárda arrests he may have an action taken against him, very probably by a man of straw, with the result that it would be impossible for the Gárdaí to carry out their duty. If you could terrorise the Guards by bringing actions against them and breaking them financially, then the Guards could not carry out their duty and a campaign of that kind would be very successful.
Deputies opposite are very willing to attack the "S" branch of the Gárda —the detectives—who show zeal in doing their duty. Are they equally willing to attack the persons who murdered Guards? If one single member of such an association has even his little finger bruised Deputies opposite will get up in indignation to denounce the Guards. Would a single one of them dare to get up and denounce the association that is guilty of murder of the Guards? Deputy G. Boland said on one occasion that there was to be no more use of the gun in this country, but he was called to order pretty quickly in certain quarters, and I have seen no similar speech made by him since. We heard no reiteration of that sound principle from Deputy Ruttledge or from any other member, responsible or irresponsible, of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Deputy Little talked to-day about the conditions we would all desire to see in this country. The condition I desire to see in this country is the condition of peace, that nobody shall attempt by force of arms to upset this State, that nobody shall be entitled to drill or to use firearms except persons authorised by law so to do. That is my view. Peace can only be got if you can keep down persons endeavouring to disturb the peace. What is Deputy Little's view? I judge a man's view by his conduct and by the words circulated outside this House in the country and Deputy Little's view and the view of his Party are as clearly as possible those: "Encourage people to have arms and encourage people to illegal drilling; stand over them at every single opportunity you can. If these soldiers say they have been treated in the slightest hostile fashion by the Guards, immediately come to their assistance and let these brave fighting men, this vigorous anti-State Army come and win in Court if the slightest thing is done against them."
I pass away from that matter and I come to some others that Deputies have touched upon. Deputy Little spoke about the Censorship Act and said that the names of prohibited books, published in certain papers, was doing harm. I agree. I wish that the names of these books were not published in any paper, certainly not in any paper circulating in this country. I cannot see that it does any good to have them published in papers which circulate in this country. Deputy Little said that books of this nature were imported from Northern Ireland into the Free State. Deputy Little seems to have a great number of sources of information at his disposal. I certainly have never heard of any such importation and I fancy that if it were taking place it would be reported to me by persons who knew of it. If the Deputy can give me any information upon which I could act I shall immediately see that the Gárdaí act. In this matter, Deputy Little comes along with the very brilliant idea. He says let the detective branch of the Gárdaí allow people drilling do just as they like, but let the Gárdaí search the book catalogues, read books and send them to the Censorship of Publications Committee. That is his idea of the proper function of the detective force. I leave it to the House to decide whether under the present administration or under an administration of which Deputy Little is likely to be a prominent member the detectives will do the more useful work.
Deputy Little talked about the censorship of films. I am perfectly satisfied that the working of the Censorship of Films Act is entirely satisfactory. I know that there are objections to this work and I am perfectly aware of the fact that representations were made by what is called the trade to the effect that there may be a shortage of pictures, if the present rigorous line of the censorship is kept up. We intend to keep up the present line and if the supply falls short it is to the producers to produce films that can be shown in respectable company. I have nothing more to add except to deal very shortly with the question of the Rules of Court and the Courts of Justice Bill.
It would be utterly impossible for the new Courts of Justice Bill to be introduced before next Autumn. We have a very heavy programme before us, and that programme must be carried through. The Courts of Justice Bill is one of many Bills of very great importance and urgency, but it must wait its turn. I am as interested in the Courts of Justice, from the position I now hold and from the fact that my whole adult life was spent in the Law Courts, and I am as interested in the successful working of the administration of the law as anybody in this House could possibly be. I myself am of opinion that the appeal system from the Circuit Court—the main suggestion the report contains— which is now in force is a system that should be altered, and I am anxious it should be done as soon as possible, but owing to the pressure upon time it cannot be done at once. I again express my great sorrow that the Circuit Court Rules were not let through at the time they were brought before this House, because if they were let through then they would have been working from that time up to the present. If there were any defects in them they would be seen, and they are precisely the same rules we will have to start off with when the new Bill becomes law.
There is another matter I must refer to. That is the specific case which Deputy Ruttledge brought up about the Peace Commissioner. This Peace Commissioner was engaged in a fracas in Cork. The facts of the case were these. He was at a fair, and there was an argument about the sale of some young pigs. His son was accused of having interfered with the bargain almost on the point of completion between a prospective purchaser and the owner of the pigs. Later on in the day these persons met and started abusing each other. The son of this Peace Commissioner and another man came to blows. The Peace Commissioner interfered in the fight on behalf of the son, and there was undoubtedly on that occasion a very regrettable fracas. The Peace Commissioner was fined £5 for his share in the struggle. Up to that time this Peace Commissioner, who had held the office for some four years, discharged the duties of his office very satisfactorily. Because he happened upon this one occasion in hot blood, when his son was engaged in a row, to intervene, does not appear to me to be in itself a sufficient ground for his removal from the Peace Commissionership. I stand over that absolutely. The main thing that happened was that the false teeth of the gentleman on the other side were broken, and that accounted for the amount of the fine.
