It is understood that the Minister will get at least ten minutes in which to conclude.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate: Press Censorship.
The Minister is welcome to that time as far as I am concerned. In raising the particular subject of which I gave notice at the opening of the Dáil to-day, I wish as far as possible to avoid being misunderstood or having my action distorted. I am aware of the fact that honest people may require to have a thing clearly put before them but no matter how clearly it may be put, it will be distorted by dishonest people. In case there may be any doubts as to my position in raising this matter, I want to make it very clear that the position of this Party, and everyone in this Party, is absolutely and in an unshakable manner behind the Government's reply to a request which was made to this Government by another State lately. It is necessary to make that clear for this reason. The Taoiseach and the Government from the very beginning, when the matter came under our notice, were made aware of our position. I was under the impression that it was agreed between ourselves and the Government that it was undesirable for us to refer to the matter in public. The Vote on Account came before the House and it was not referred to in a public and specific manner from these benches. Honest people, and others less honest, misinterpreted that silence with the result that General Mulcahy yesterday in the Seanad had to make clear the attitude of this Party. I am reaffirming that attitude.
I raised the question on the adjournment purely of the propriety of discussing the conduct of any foreign Minister in this country through the channels of the Press. I am not, in raising that particular matter as to propriety or procedure, championing any individual in any dispute that he may have with a newspaper or anybody else. An article appeared in the Irish Press to-day. The article, in the main, was dealing with and replying to propaganda in other newspapers, which propaganda was harmful to this country. As far as the article was dealing with such propaganda, and correcting misunderstandings that might arise through such propaganda, I have no fault to find with it, but in the course of that article it was stated that certain information alleged to be false could only have reached such newspapers either through the Head of the Government here or through the representative of the United States of America in this country; that they were aware of the fact that such information was not given by the Head of the Government; that ordinary people, therefore, would believe that it had been given by the representative of the United States in this country; and if that was incorrect, that particular representative of the United States was called on to deny the statement made.
My questions were as follows: Was the Censor made aware of that particular article? Did it meet with the approval of the Censor, and further, in present circumstances, did he consider it safe and wise and proper that, where a charge is made or suggested against a Minister representing another country, the name of that particular Minister should be pulled into a controversial article in a newspaper? I want to know, further, were the ordinary diplomatic channels used before that article was written, in order to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the statement made? My net point is this: whether it is in keeping with the national dignity of this State, and with the reputation we have for courtesy and for hospitality, that we should allow the name of an honoured guest, no matter who he may be, whether his name is Gray, Maffey or Hempel, to be dragged into the controversial columns of the Irish Press, and that that should be done with the approval of the Censor and in a paper that is generally regarded as a Government organ.
We have in this country a reputation, hardly earned, for being a people determined to stand over their rights, no matter what the odds may be, a people, no matter how gravely or acutely they may differ, who will always be found to stand together in defence of those rights. We have in addition to that a reputation, deservedly earned, for hospitality, for courtesy, for proper decorum, for knowing how to behave at home and abroad, nationally and internationally. I doubt if we are setting a healthy headline in allowing the columns of any national newspaper, a national newspaper closely associated with the Government, to be used in order to draw into a controversy the name of any Minister representing any foreign country and living here in our capital. As the Taoiseach has frequently said, in our neutral position we are in the position of balancing on a razor edge. If articles of this kind, in association with names, are to appear, is it perfectly wise, is it perfectly safe, is it making our neutrality more secure, is there even the possibility of a misunderstanding and of offence being taken where none was meant? If there is even the remotest possibility of offence being taken where none was intended, then I think that such articles should not be allowed to appear. The article was headed "Denial Needed". The suggestion is that denial by the American Minister is needed in order to clarify the situation. I was informed since I raised this matter to-day by the Press—that before that article appeared in the columns of the Irish Press, the Irish Press was telephonically informed— yesterday evening—on behalf of the American Minister that he had given no such interview as is referred to in the editorial.
In other words, if that be true, before that article was written they had a denial by the Taoiseach, which is mentioned in the editorial, and a denial by the American Minister. Yet, the article goes out a day afterwards asking the American Minister, as it were, to clear his name by giving a denial. As I have said, I have raised this matter on the question of proper behaviour, on the question of hospitality and courtesy, on the question of introducing any element that may make a difficult situation more difficult. In raising this matter, I am not departing one inch from the expressed determination of all elements, classes and Parties in this country to stand over the firm refusal of the request made. I am not championing the particular Minister referred to in the editorial. I am questioning the advisability of a Government Department, in times of difficulty and delicacy, allowing to reach the public, through our national newspapers, articles that might be taken as as giving offence either to a Minister of a foreign country or to the foreign country that sent that Minister here.
This afternoon, Deputy O'Higgins alluded to this article as one that "gives offence to the Minister of a friendly country in our capital and provocation to a friendly country." He has asked me whether or not the leading article in question in to-day's Irish Press entitled “Denial Needed” was submitted for censorship and, if so, whether it was passed for publication. It was submitted and it was passed.
Dismiss the Censor.
I regret very much that Deputy O'Higgins has seen fit to describe the article as one that "gives offence to the Minister of a friendly country in our capital and provocation to a friendly country." It is no such thing. I hold very strongly that the only person to whom that article could give offence is the special correspondent of the newsagency that circulated untrue reports about the Government and the people of this country.
It was this same special correspondent, representing the Associated Press, that, apparently quite deliberately and after he had been officially informed that it was untrue, circulated the story that the Irish Red Cross had invited Axis representatives to a ceilidh in St. Patrick's Hall on St. Patrick's night and had not invited the American Minister. The publication of that story, without repudiation, could only help to bedevil the relations between the people of Ireland and the people of America and create the impression that the Irish Red Cross deliberately insulted the representative of a Government and of a people to whom they have every right to be grateful for the magnificent gifts they have received from the American Red Cross during the past couple of years. The Irish Red Cross, naturally, felt it their duty immediately to repudiate that lie—the lie that they had insulted the American Minister by inviting Axis representatives and ignoring him. The Irish Press, on the 22nd March, published a leading article denouncing the action of the Associated Press in this regard. That leading article of the 22nd March—the day before the publication of the article to which Deputy O'Higgins refers—had the effect of securing circulation by the Associated Press of the Red Cross denial of the untrue statement. It had that good effect. Otherwise, it looked as if the denial by the Red Cross was not going to be circulated.
Coming to this leading article to which Deputy O'Higgins refers, it will be noted that it deals with a further untruth which was circulated by this same special correspondent of the Associated Press and was, in fact, part of the same message which misrepresented the Irish Red Cross. This second part, however—the part dealt with in to-day's leading article—did not reach this country until yesterday: the first part was dealt with in the previous day's Irish Press article which, as I have said, had the effect of securing publication of the Red Cross denial.
Now, let anybody read the full story which was circulated by the Associated Press, and I think that any reader would infer from it that it was from the American Minister that this special correspondent of the Associated Press received the alleged information regarding the Red Cross function and, further, that it was from the American Minister that he also received the allegation that the Taoiseach was overcome by ungovernable fury, shouting and thumping the table, when he received the American Note of the 21st February. It is incredible that the American Minister would be guilty of circulating such a hostile description, intended to misrepresent the interview which he had with the Taoiseach, or that, in fact, he would commit so grave a breach of diplomatic courtesy as to tell a Press correspondent, no matter who that correspondent might be, even true details about what happened between himself and the Taoiseach upon such an occasion. The American Minister, yesterday, repudiated the first part of this special correspondent's statement, and I feel certain that he will also repudiate the second part, which was published in the Irish Press to-day.
We all remember the recent past and we remember that this is not the first occasion upon which the American Minister felt compelled to repudiate certain journalists. It will be remembered, in fact, that it was only last week that he did so in regard to the story that was doing so much damage abroad and which was attributed to him by the New York Times correspondent in London: the story in connection with the alleged Axis diplomatic bags. That happened only last week, and I felt that it was in the interests of the good relations which have existed between the Irish and the American peoples that the American Minister should have been given the opportunity, by this article in the Irish Press, of repudiating to the Irish people the falsehoods which were being circulated abroad on his alleged authority, and, accordingly, I passed the article for publication.
I only want to add this: that since the beginning of this war a number of foreign newspapers have tried to bedevil the relations between Ireland and England, and between Ireland and the United States of America. Deputies know, generally, the manner in which Censorship is operated here, and in order to stop one word from borrowing another and to prevent our people losing their balanced judgment by the publication in our papers of unfair attacks by individual trouble-making foreign journalists, I have prohibited, consistently, since the beginning of the war, the publication in our papers of these attacks, except in the case where definite allegations were made which had to be countered in the national interests by authoritative statements here in the Dáil or in our newspapers.
It is quite clear, I think, to any honest observer that while the Censorship upheld, as was its duty, the decision of the Irish people to remain neutral during these years, it refused steadfastly to allow this country to be dragged into the propaganda war against any side; particularly as it is well known that we have steadfastly tried, in every way that we could, to prevent any ill-feeling being created between the Irish people and our nearest neighbour, and between the Irish people and that country in which there are more members of the Irish race than in all the other countries in the world combined. It is our interest and our heartfelt desire as a people that good relations with both these countries should continue.
These good relations, however, cannot last if deliberate misrepresentations about the acts and attitude of the Irish people and their Government are circulated abroad without authoritative repudiation. I can only hope that American and English news agencies will put an end to the unfair and untruthful propaganda war against the Irish Government and people: that they will do so, if not in the interests of truth and justice or of this small Irish people, then at least in the interests of the peoples of the United States and Great Britain, with whom it is our desire, now as in the past, to have peaceful and friendly relations on the basis, of course, of free and equal nationhood and of reciprocal respect for each other's rights.
Might I be permitted to put a question to the Minister, Sir?
Yes.
I take no exception whatsoever to the Minister's statement, but I think that, inadvertently, no doubt, he overlooked the last portion of my statement, to the effect that I had been informed that the Irish Press last evening was notified, on behalf of the American Minister, that he gave no such interview as alleged. If that is correct, does not the Minister consider that it was entirely inadvisable that the article should appear, calling on the American Minister to deny a thing which he had already denied, if my information is correct?
I would agree altogether with the Deputy, but the Deputy is mixing times. I dealt with the Deputy's statement, and with this article, on the basis of the information I had up to 8.45 this evening, and I understand that in or about that time, as I thought would happen, the American Minister has repudiated this business, as asked by the Irish Press.
And stated that he had told the Irish Press last evening.
I do not know if that is so.
Supposing that it is so——
Well, I have not heard of it.
——would it change the Minister's mind?
The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 28th March, 1944.