Deputy McGilligan has given notice of a question on the adjournment. The practice of the House has been that if the adjournment of the House comes earlier than the hour fixed, half an hour is given to a matter arising out of a question on the Order Paper. Ten minutes is usually allowed to the Minister concerned in which to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - Alleged Illegal Conspiracy.
I do not say I am going to dispute what you have stated, but I want to enter a protest against that being described as the practice. I was often allowed less than two minutes in which to reply. To-day I asked the President a question, which appears as No. 1 on the Order Paper. That question refers to the famous, or rather infamous, statement which the President made at Dundalk on September 10th. I have paraphrased it in this way in my question: "alleging an illegal conspiracy and an endeavour to intimidate farmers into signing a pledge to pay no rent or rates by circulating a list of boycotted persons to owners of threshing machines."
The President said that that remark of his was of general import, and had no relation to the trial of the nine Waterford farmers, which was then proceeding. I joined those two things together in the question to-day, directing his attention to the explanation he gave of this phrase, and asking him would he tell me if there were any other prosecutions or trials pending founded on such lists being circulated to owners of threshing machines, or if investigations were still proceeding in cases in which the circulation of such lists to owners of threshing machines is alleged and, in the latter event, to state the number of such cases. The purpose of that question is clear. I again wanted to impugn the statement of the President, in Dundalk, as being contempt of court. I wanted to refer to his explanation that in fact it was of general import and had no relation to the Waterford cases, and to give him his chance of justifying that statement of his, which I characterised as a falsehood. I asked him to state whether there are any prosecutions pending in cases in which the allegation that lists of boycotted persons were being sent to owners of threshing machines formed part of the charge. For fear we might get the answer that proceedings were pending, which we got in the case of Superintendent Casserly, I asked him to say if proceedings were pending in any case, even if proceedings were not pending in cases in which this was part of the allegation.
The reply we got is: "I am not aware that any prosecutions are pending on charges of circulating lists of boycotted persons to owners of threshing machines." That much at any rate is clear. There are no charges pending, in spite of the statement of the President, at Dundalk, that there was widespread conspiracy on foot, the proof being that lists of boycotted persons were being circulated to owners of threshing machines. Now we get the statement that at any rate, up-to-date, they have not been able to get material for a prosecution. Of course the President must have a way out, and so I am told I may feel confident that every aspect of the conspiracy to prevent the payment of rates is still alleged, but we have dropped from the charge sheet this time that it is evidenced by the circulation of lists of boycotted persons to owners of threshing machines.
We are told that every aspect of the conspiracy to prevent the payment of rates is receiving the attention of the Department of Justice, and that any measures necessary to defeat that conspiracy will be taken. The President is becoming an adept at running away, skidaddling before criticism, running away from the tribunal he promised to set up in regard to the vicious charge made by him in this House. It is noteworthy that this appeared on 11th September, and the other charge appeared about a fortnight later. It was a great pity Deputy Mulcahy was in the House for the other charge. The President in one case tried to press the peaceful Pigotting on one member of the Dáil, and in the other instance on the Party, but he is the Pigott in the business himself. His reputation may meet with the fate that Pigott's met with. What did he say to the charges that were made against him? What explanation did he offer through representative people representing him before the tribunal? At Dundalk, as reported on 11th September, he said:—
"I have already referred to the campaign of Mr. MacDermot's Party against the payment of rates. This illegal conspiracy has assumed a very serious aspect in some parts of the country, where representatives of the Farmers' and Ratepayers' Association have been endeavouring to intimidate farmers into signing a pledge to pay no rent or rates. The names of farmers who refuse to enter into this dishonest undertaking are placed on a list of boycotted persons which is circulated to owners of threshing machines and other persons who would be likely to have dealings with them."
Let us just note in detail the serious allegations contained in that. There is a campaign against the payment of rates. It is a campaign run by Mr. MacDermot's Party. It is a conspiracy. It is illegal. It has assumed a very serious aspect. It is particularly serious where representatives of the Farmers' and Ratepayers' Association have endeavoured to intimidate— and they intimidated for a purpose— farmers into signing a pledge to pay no rent or rates. The special detail of proof is given in the statement that the names of farmers who refused to enter into this dishonest undertaking are placed on a list of boycotted persons which is circulated to owners of threshing machines.
We have it that there is an illegal conspiracy backed by Mr. MacDermot and his Party, backed by representatives of the Farmers' and Ratepayers' Association, and evidenced—and this is the test of the whole matter—by lists of boycotted persons being circulated to owners of threshing machines. On the 28th September, as reported in the daily Press on 29th September, Deputy Costello called attention to this. He said that it amounted to contempt of court. He said that the President prejudged the cases which the Tribunal was to be called upon to decide on the following Monday. Deputy Costello used those words, which I want to quote, and if I could add to the vehemence of Deputy Costello on that occasion I would do so: "That abuse of his position should bring down scorn on the person who so abused his high authority and high position as to make use of these expressions at a public meeting. The people of the country will bear this in mind as a contemptible and cowardly thing to do." If Deputy Costello had considered for weeks he could not get two better adjectives than "contemptible" and "cowardly" to describe that statement. As reported in the daily Press of 2nd October, senior counsel appearing before the Tribunal for those who were charged in a number of cases, raised the matter in this way: "On Friday a fresh charge was served on these nine persons charging them with conspiracy and intimidation of certain other persons. It happened that certain observations had been made by the President of the Executive Council in Dundalk on September 10th, at a public meeting, and these were such as, in his opinion, to constitute a grave contempt of that court. He had consulted with the other barristers in the case and they conceived it to be their duty to bring this matter before the court, which was the custodian of its own dignity. It was a contempt of any tribunal to pre-judge any matters that might come before it. It was a scandalisation of the court and the court was bound to prevent it." These words were added: "and the higher the office of the person the more serious the offence." Counsel went on to say: "The following words were used by the President of the Executive Council and I ask you to take such notice as you think fit of them." Then followed the quotation, which I have just read, about the illegal conspiracy which was assuming a serious aspect in certain parts of the country, where representatives of the Farmers' and Ratepayers' Association had been endeavouring to intimidate farmers into signing a pledge to pay no rent or rates, and alleging that the names of the farmers who refused to sign are placed on the list of boycotted persons for service on the owners of threshing machines. Counsel continued:
"This is a reference to a case before the Tribunal, and it is now to be asked to try nine men whom the President of the Executive Council has declared in public to be guilty of illegal conspiracy to intimidate farmers into the signing of a pledge to pay no rent or rates. That is the case you have to try.
"The President of the Executive Council has prejudged it, and I ask you to consider what is necessary to be done in the matter."
The President of the Executive Council then got a bit nervous about this, and in Galway he spoke of it in these terms as reported in the Press of October 2nd:
"He said he had been criticised because of a statement he made in Dundalk, and he was blamed for something he did not do, in the way of prejudicing a certain case that was before the courts.
"He claimed that it was his duty to speak to the people and warn them of a conspiracy he knew was about the country. Why should he be asked to stand aside because some people were charged in connection with that conspiracy?"
This is given in inverted commas:
"I was," he added, "speaking of the conditions of the country as a whole, and every Irishman knew that I was speaking in the interests of the community and not in reference to any particular case before the courts."
There was a conspiracy, and accordingly, the President in Galway repeated what he said in Dundalk. It was widespread. He knew of it, and he wanted to warn people of the generality of it. He was asked if he could tell of any, other than the nine Waterford cases, pending for prosecution, in which the sending of the names of boycotted persons to the owners of threshing machines formed part of the charge and, if so, to state the number. Was there a widespread conspiracy of which this was evidence? We have it to-day, that the nine Waterford farmers were the only people who could be produced. Yet the President said then, and I suppose will say now, that he was speaking generally, and not with reference to these particular cases. On the 3rd October, senior counsel appearing for the Attorney-General in relation to another case, said he would, with the permission of the court, say a few words in regard to the speech made by the counsel for the defence, in reference to the President of the Executive Council on Saturday last. He gave certain enlightenment on the Attorney-General's position. This is one:
"There had not been the slightest intimation to him or to either of his two colleagues that such a charge was going to be made and no intimation had been given to the solicitor instructing them or to any official of the State. Therefore, the court would understand there had been no delay in saying what he intended to say now."
This was the substance of his remarks:
"I say that the statement that Mr. de Valera referred to an impending case in this court or in any other court is untrue and without foundation of any sort.
"The statement was made on Saturday morning and Mr. de Valera apparently felt that he should take the first opportunity presenting itself to him of protesting that it was untrue and, accordingly, in Galway on Saturday night he publicly said that he did not refer to any pending case."
Then there was talk of what should happen in the opinion of that counsel. Senior counsel on the other side replying said:—
"Counsel had not specifically informed the court whether the statement he had just made was made on behalf of President de Valera or on behalf of the Attorney-General. Portions of his observations seemed to be on part of one, and portions on the part of another, and counsel might, perhaps, feel inclined to clarify that.
He continued:—
"He made his statement on Saturday when it seemed to him apparent that Mr. de Valera's observations referred to a particular case, and that was his first opportunity of making an application to the court."
Counsel went on:—
"He followed what he believed to be the practice of the High Court— that was, if a person was deemed or alleged to have been guilty of contempt of court to apply for an order that the person should attend and answer for his alleged contempt.
"He did not know whether opposing counsel's submission meant that the Attorney-General had taken into consideration some submissions made by the President and had decided that the observations had no reference to the case or whether he meant that Mr. de Valera assured the court that no reference to the case was intended."
The Attorney-General
On a point of order, I understand it is a rule of order in this House that matters concluded by definite rule of a court cannot be referred to. The Deputy is referring to the question as to whether there was contempt of court.
I am not.
The Attorney-General
On a subsequent occasion the Tribunal ruled that the President's words, to which the Deputy has referred, did not refer to a particular case. Does not that conclude the matter? Is it open to the Deputy to reopen the matter?
That is a good move, to run away. I am not referring to contempt of court.
It is not in order to allege that there was contempt of court when the court itself has decided that there was not.
The Attorney-General
I understood that was the burden of the Deputy's speech.
I would not have a decision in this House ruled by what the Attorney-General thinks, on anything. I do not think that would be a right criterion at all, on anything. Do not run away yet; there may be an answer. Counsel said:
"If Mr. de Valera said he did not intend to refer to this case, if counsel so informed the court, counsel respectfully asked the court to say it would have been more appropriate if Mr. de Valera had made the statement to the court instead of in a public speech reported in the Press on Sunday morning."
It was referred to later by junior counsel on behalf of the nine Waterford farmers. There is a suggestion that he did not refer to that case in Dundalk. Counsel was interrupted on the point. At a later date another senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. de Valera, asked the indulgence of the court to make a statement on behalf of the President of the Executive Council. There was some argument as to whether the President was in attendance and as to whether he had instructed counsel to appear for him, or whether counsel had been appearing for the Attorney-General, as he was apparently in the previous cases, or what was his case. Counsel said:
"He was instructed on behalf of the President of the Executive Council to say that his attention had been called to observations made by opposing counsel to the Tribunal, suggesting that a certain public statement made by the President at Dundalk on the 10th September was made for the purpose of prejudicing the trial of a case before the Tribunal."
Note the perversion.
What is the case? If it is not that it is a case of contempt of court what is the Deputy trying to make it, or is he out for publicity?
The President has raised quite regularly a point of order. There are three points on which the Deputy's original question sought information, namely, whether any other prosecutions are pending, are any further investigations proceeding and if so the number of such cases. The Deputy has not yet related his speech to those points.
I am developing my argument and I think I should be allowed to go on. If the President makes a point of order I am not bound to answer it.
It is the function of the Chair to deal with points of order.
What is the point of order?
The question of the relevancy of the Deputy's speech to the questions asked this morning.
I am going to read what the President said, that there were other cases. I asked the President to state in what respect they were general, and I referred to the answer I got.
Where are the others?
Do not run away.
It is the Deputy is running away.
I have no Pigott on my side. The President will not laugh when he comes to the Dáil next Wednesday and finds three or four more questions about the Pigott business. This is a solemn matter. Even the Attorney-General cannot force a smile on it.
The Attorney-General
Everyone is amused.
That is not relevant to this discussion.
No more than if the Attorney-General was in a certain society and had to leave it. It may be brought in. The Attorney-General has left most things he pledged himself to at some time or another. If I may continue—this counsel said that the statement made by the President, as quoted by the other counsel, was based on information supplied to the President. The usual excuse! So was Deputy Mulcahy's charge. He went on:—
"The observations were clearly of a general character dealing with a condition of affairs which he regarded as so serious as to require public condemnation. In his opinion, it was necessary to inform the public without delay...."
Then we get this, which certainly would have brought a blush to the cheek of even the President if he had been there to hear it:
"It has always been recognised that it is the duty of public men to denounce criminal activity where the maintenance of essential public services is concerned."
You have only to let your mind wander back to 1922, 1923 or 1924 to see how the generality of that statement applies. The President instructed this man to go before the Tribunal and through him "to take the earliest opportunity of publicly disavowing the intention"—the "intention" was not questioned; it was the tendency, the calculation objectively that was questioned in this case.
The Attorney-General
The Deputy is making it quite clear now that he is referring to the matter of the contempt of court, and I submit that it is not allowable for a Deputy to seek to evade the Rules of the House in the way in which this Deputy is seeking to evade them.
Let me make this point. Counsel said:
"I am instructed to repeat to the Tribunal what the President has already publicly stated, that in making the observations complained of he was speaking of the country as a whole and not in reference to any particular case before the court."
The Attorney-General
And that was accepted by the court.
Was it, now? The Attorney-General will not raise a point of order if I read this:
"The Tribunal is satisfied that the observations of the President were of a general character...."
There is his clearance.
"... and were not intended to prejudice the court in any way."
Nobody asserted that they were "intended" to prejudice. The assertion is that they were "calculated" and there is a difference. Maybe the Attorney-General knows it.
"The President of the Tribunal is satisfied that the observations of the President were of a general character."
That is the issue I bring this to. I am not questioning the decision of the Tribunal that in their judgment these observations were of a general character. I want to take the opinion of members of the House on the matter. They may have a definite opinion on it. I gave the President an opportunity of proving that they were of a general character and of substantiating the Tribunal's decision. What do we find he does? I asked him—let me read again: "Do you remember a statement you made in Dundalk alleging that there was a conspiracy and that it was evidenced by the sending of lists of boycotted persons to the owners of threshing machines; and do you remember that you said that that was of general import and had not reference to the Waterford case, and—I will add now—do you remember that the Tribunal found that that was so?" And I asked the President to back up the Tribunal and to tell us any other case in which there is a prosecution pending in respect of which it is part of the charge that there are members of a certain organisation getting men's names placed on a boycott list and sending these lists of persons to the owners of threshing machines, and I am told there is no such list. There is no such prosecution pending. If anything is tending to make people think adversely of the Tribunal, to think that their finding was not the correct one, the President's answer is a thing that might make people turn their attention that way.
There is no prosecution pending, and yet these remarks were of a general character, and the conspiracy was widespread through the country, and the evidence on which the conspiracy rested was a boycott list and the sending of that list to the owners of threshing machines. Remember—and again in this, we may acclaim the judgment of the Tribunal—the one case that was tried resulted in the Tribunal saying "Not guilty on all charges." There was the one case we had in which it was part of the allegation that there was a conspiracy and that it rested on the making out of lists of boycotted persons and the sending of those lists to the owners of threshing machines, and the Tribunal said "Not guilty." I asked the President to-day to give me one other case in which there is a prosecution pending, and he says that there are not any. I asked him further to tell me even this: "Are there inquiries proceeding with a view to bringing to justice any single person where the allegation is that he joined in a process of intimidating farmers by sending lists of boycotted people to the owners of threshing machines?" If we are to take anything from the answer, it is that there are not even inquiries proceeding with regard to such cases. That is the general statement.
I gave the President his opportunity to-day to show that his statement was of general import, and he pinned it fast to the Waterford case, and on the matter raised now, this distinction is made by the Military Tribunal. But the conspiracy that was afoot was an easily recognised thing, a conspiracy to defame, the Pigotting that I call it, the peaceful Pigotting of Deputy Mulcahy, the individual, the getting after the party. He is asked to produce evidence, and he hides behind the fact that one man will not come forward. He is hiding himself more than the man now in this. He is asked to give us the evidence on which he said that his remarks were of general import and had no reference to the case pending before the Military Tribunal, and he cannot give a case. That is why I call attention to the answers given to-day, as being unsatisfactory, definitely unsatisfactory, so far as this thing is concerned. He had one case in which there was an allegation of a conspiracy being on foot in this country. It was tried out by the Attorney-General and himself, and it failed. There was only one case of lists of boycotted persons being sent to the owners of threshing machines, and it was a failure.
The Attorney-General
The "no rates" campaign is a failure.
It may be, and it may never have existed except in the diseased imagination of the Attorney-General, no more than the giving away of official secrets. The Attorney-General was told that he was a tripe merchant, so far as that is concerned.
The Attorney-General
I was not.
You were told very nearly that, and you can be told the same thing in this matter.
The Attorney-General
You can deal with that.
I have never feared to break a lance with the Attorney-General, but I would fear to bash heads with him.
The Attorney-General
You did not come in to discuss that, when it was discussed here.
I know that the Attorney-General's power of eviscerating an opponent is so well recognised in this House that most people will avoid him.
The Attorney-General
I did not catch that witticism.
Let me return to the President. He has tried a very dirty game in this. Do not let us mince words about it. It was very bad when it was tried against Deputy Mulcahy, but it was caught out there.
The Chair has already ruled that reference to the Deputy Mulcahy incident is not in order on this discussion.
I have made only a reference to it——
The Deputy has since referred twice to a matter which is irrelevant. He should not have done so.
It is in the context and I cannot help referring to it. I apologise for having done so. I have used a phrase with regard to the President which I want to repeat. He is the Pigott in all this business. He is throwing out these phrases and he hopes that he will get some little bit of mud to stick to the people against whom he flings handfuls of it. I told him that Pigott had committed suicide. The President has not done that—I hope he will not. But his reputation has had its throat cut from ear to ear by this, if not by anything else, and he does not clear himself by the sort of evasive answers and the running away tactics which he displayed about this to-day.
Are we going to hear any further remarks from the opposite side, I wonder? I have nothing whatever to add to the statement I made myself and to the statement that was made on my behalf in that particular case. The remarks I made were of a general character, because the information we had was to the effect that in several parts of the country this campaign was on. I believe that it was on, and I believe that the majority of the people of this country know it was on.
Rubbish. There is no evidence of it.
I leave that to the people who will read your talk tomorrow, and we will see whether they believe that I was correct in saying that that campaign was on or not. I spoke of this campaign; I spoke of the activities of the people who were engaged in it as evidenced in various ways, just as I would speak of any other general campaign of crime or criminal activity which I thought it was in the public interest to advert to and to call public attention to. I believe that my calling attention to it had one good result anyhow. The gentlemen on the opposite side who were giving assistance to that campaign have been much more careful of doing it since.
A Deputy
Name!
There were on the opposite side people who, on more than one occasion, gave help to that campaign. We had here in the Dáil a speech by the former leader of that particular Party with so many "ifs" in it—"If a person is not able to pay then he will not pay." Who is going to judge whether he is able to pay or not?
Will the President please quote from the speeches?
I am referring to the speech which a Deputy made but I have not got the quotation. Everyone remembers it. The Deputy got into the question of the ability to pay. We had speeches from the opposite side always with the suggestion: "If you are not able to pay, of course you will not pay." Who is going to judge whether they are able to pay or not? Everybody finds it hard to pay at times. Many of us find when we are paying our debts that it is not easy to do it, but everybody here was to have an excuse. The excuse was being put into their mouths, the excuse that they found it hard to pay as times were bad. The suggestion was that they should be let off from the payment of the rates. If people were to be let off, the courts were the authorities to decide that. They were the people to decide whether people were able to pay or not. I say that every statement by Deputies on the opposite side suggesting that people were not able to pay was a direct incitement not to pay but the campaign to which I referred was a much more direct campaign. As I say the information which came to me did not come from one part of a county but from several counties. I believe the people, and I am willing to be judged by the people, knew that this campaign was going on.
Why were not there further prosecutions?
As I say, I have nothing further to add to the statement I made to-day.
It is an apology you ought to make.
None whatever. I have nothing whatever to add. It is perfectly clear that the statement could not be construed as contempt of court in any court.
Rubbish.
It was not so construed by the court who tried the case.
Have you any more threshing machine cases?
The Dáil adjourned at 9.23 p.m. until Wednesday, 22nd November, at 3 p.m.