It would be a most difficult task to impose on me to make extracts from the evidence and do justice to the Deputy concerned. I merely want to place the record of evidence before the House. I cannot judge with infallible propriety as to what should be put on the records of the House and what should not. I continue the reading of the report:—
"Witness received a letter from the Department dated 15/4/44 stating that it was incorrect to state that the Minister had relied on Moylan, and that the reasons for the Departmental decision had already been given to witness. After further correspondence with the Department, he 'phoned Mr. Murray and asked if the latter had any further information, but he said he could give no information and perhaps it would have been wiser if those men had not been pressed for a quota. Ten minutes later, witness received a 'phone message saying that Shribman and Samuels had been arrested.
Mr. Murnaghan: Are either of the accused constituents of yours?—No.
Mr. Costello (who was counsel in the cause): They are constituents of mine.
Mr. Murnaghan: Do you say you made representations on behalf of any other watch firms?—I do.
Who were they?—The Romeda Watch Company, Benson's and Lawrence's.
What were you told about the Romeda Co.?—I was told that they had been refused francs, and, notwithstanding that, they had proceeded to attempt to make payments for watches by depositing bonds in England with an agent of the consignor in order to secure the release of watches here, and to evade the Department's restrictions.
That would be Mr. Handelmann?— Yes.
Did you convey to him that you were not proceeding with the representations?—I did.
What about Benson's?—Benson came to me three or four times and explained that he had a quota jointly with Ticher, Ltd., and also one on his own, and that he had come to the conclusion that in making the original application he had not done justice to himself. I told him that, in view of the 50 per cent. increase on the figures, the matter was not worth bothering about.
And what about Lawrence?—I mentioned it to the Department and they pointed out that he had not previously been an importer.
Is Samuels associated with a firm in Grafton Street?—I believe that he had a sister who has a firm in Grafton Street. I don't remember the name of the firm, but I know the shop.
What sort of firm is it?—It sells jewellery.
What is the Universal Watch Company?—As far as my information goes, it is a firm registered specifically for the purpose of importing watches from Switzerland.
Registered by whom?—I don't know.
Who was interested in the firm?— The name was first mentioned to me by the Department in connection with Mr. Mack.
Who is the Reliable Watch Company?—It is a firm owned, I understand, by Mrs. Shribman.
Until the proceedings in this court, did you know that?—No. I knew that Shribman or Samuels or both were close to this firm.
Could you describe these people as Shribman and Samuels, the Gilbert Watch Company, or the Reliable Watch Company?—No. For the purpose of clearing these watches, all could be eliminated except one, because the Department had decided to give a quota only to the one.
Were the Reliable Watch Company, the Gilbert Watch Company, the Universal Watch Company, and Samuels Brothers, in fact, Shribman and Samuels?—Yes.
Did you know, as a fact, that watches passing through the Gilbert Watch Company or Shribman and Samuels had been smuggled out of Eire?—No.
You knew that watches in large quantities were being sold to Moylan?—At that time, I knew nothing of the transactions or of the existence of Moylan.
Did you trouble to inquire as to where the watches were going from Shribman and Samuels?—Of course, I did. I told them that the Department wondered why they had ordered such a large quantity of watches, and that the quantity ordered would be far in excess of the normal requirements of the country.
Did you tell Shribman and Samuels that you and the Department were worried about these watches being illegally exported?— Being illegally exported never arose. Shribman and Samuels assured me that they wanted the watches for domestic consumption here.
Mr. Briscoe, further replying, said that he had made a cursory examination of the books of the Gilbert Watch Company, which he had later handed to the Department. He was satisfied from that examination that the firm had ample customers here to sell their watches.
Did you learn from Samuels that the majority of the watches had been sold to Moylan?—He told me that all the watches had been disposed of here. The first time Moylan came to my knowledge was when he was mentioned to me by Mr. Murray.
Had Shribman or Samuels never told you about Moylan?—No.
Did you not think it peculiar that Moylan was dealing with such a large number of watches?—No. I thought he was buying and selling.
Witness further said he did not know that Samuels had been mixed up in smuggling activities, but he knew of a case in which he had been fined for a firm with which he was connected.
Asked if he had received letters on the letter-heading ‘Samuels Bros., 97 Middle Abbey Street,' he said that he might have done.
Mr. Murnaghan: Wasn't it the merest cod to write you a letter under the heading and address of a firm that did not exist?
Mr. Lavery interjected to say that Samuels Bros. was a limited company and had a legal existence.
Mr. Briscoe then said that the Department had agreed to the application for francs being made in the name of Samuels Bros., but the Revenue Commissioners took the cheque for the duty from the Gilbert Watch Company. The whole thing, therefore, appeared to be a cod. All through the correspondence Samuels Bros. and the Gilbert Watch Company became intermixed for the purpose of getting the watches.
Mr. Murnaghan then referred to the letter written by witness to the Department in February, 1944, and asked: ‘Who was the person from whom the untrue information was alleged to have been extracted?'
Witness: I should have said ‘to attempt to extract', because Mr. Ticher was one of the persons who told me.
Asked whether he had received any financial assistance from Shribman and Samuels, witness said that it was not unusual to find himself short of money and to discount bills, but he would not borrow from a person who would expect him to do anything wrong.
Asked if he had, in fact, received financial accommodation from the Gilbert Watch Company during the period he was making representations to the Department on their behalf, Mr. Briscoe said that he was a man with a very large income and engaged himself in developing various little businesses. At that particular time he was associated with R.B. Metal Products for the manufacture of collar studs, and had casually mentioned to the Gilbert Watch Company that he was going to his cousin to borrow some money. They offered to discount bills for him to the extent of £150. These bills were duly met by him and the interest which accrued was reimbursed to Mr. Samuels.
Witness, questioned about his relations with the Department, said: ‘If the Department had satisfied me that these people (Shribman and Samuels) were not entitled to francs or could not get them, that would have ended my interest, but I have not been satisfied up to this moment.'"
Some evidence was then tendered relating exclusively to a man called Moylan which, I believe, I can, with perfect propriety, omit. I continue:
"Mr. Briscoe said his sole purpose in seeing Moylan was to find out if he had involved the Gilbert Watch Company in the statement he had made, and he (witness) had accepted Moylan's statement that he had not involved it. He did not think that Shribman and Samuels were capable of smuggling.
President: In your letter of November 22, 1943, you wrote: ‘I have myself reason to believe that watches were, in fact, smuggled from Éire.' What did you mean?—Mr. Murray had explained to me that large quantities of watches were coming into the country far in excess of the normal requirement and that they were being smuggled into England, and that it would be very dangerous for us if such a thing happened, because our supplies of francs might be cut off. I agreed, and told him at that time lots of people were coming from the North of Ireland and that all the shops were doing a great trade with them. I did hear that there was some traffic in the illegal getting out of watches, for the purpose of smuggling them to England.
You had no definite evidence about it?—No.
Did you know about the disagreement in the Gilbert Watch Company between Mr. Schaper and Messrs. Shribman and Samuels?—Only from the time I took up the application.
Did you know the extent of the dealings between Shribman and Samuels and Mack?—I understood that large quantities of watches had been ordered.
Did you know the amount?—I never knew the amount until later on. I believe there were more ordered and that some were sent back. I know there were substantial quantities ordered.
Did you ever know that of this £21,000 worth of watches that has been referred to, about £8,500 of watches had not been entered on the books of the Gilbert Watch Company?—No.
You were never told that £8,500 worth of watches were not entered on the books?—Afterwards all the facts came out, and I subsequently did hear it.
When did you find out that the £8,500 worth of watches were not entered on the books?—About March, 1943.
Who told you?—Shribman and Samuels.
Did you inform the Department of Finance that these watches were not entered?—I discussed every aspect of the matter with the Department, and I am sure they are aware of it.
I am asking you a definite question and I want a definite answer. Did you inform the Department of the fact that this £8,500 worth of watches was not entered on the company's books?—I did not inform them of it, but they were aware of it.
Now, I desire to place these matters before the House with complete detachment and with no desire to generate heat, acrimony or recrimination. I believe that the evidence which I have read to the House does give legitimate grounds for the prima facie suspicion that a transaction took place which is not in accordance with the standards of conduct which must be required of any Deputy of Dáil Éireann. I believe it is the duty of this Dáil itself to make careful inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding this case and, having done so, without fear or favour, to report to this House what they have discovered to be the true nature of these transactions, declaring Deputy Briscoe to be faultless in the whole transaction, if that be their finding, or else pointing out where he erred and in how far that error was due to imprudence, or, if need be, to malice, and having settled his responsibility, to place on record the judgment of this House on that conduct, objectively, if needs be by addressing such admonishment to the Deputy or not as the House deems prudent.
I am bound in conclusion to refer briefly to one aspect of this matter without which I feel I would do myself a great injustice. It could be, and may perhaps have been, suggested, that my bringing this matter before Dáil Eireann is in some measure due to an anti-Semitic inclination in myself and that it was on account of Deputy Briscoe's race and faith that I wished to direct the attention of the Dáil to this transaction. I want to say quite deliberately that that is not true, that I regard anti-Semitism as utterly diabolical, that I believe the curse of God must descend on any person who takes part directly or indirectly in the persecution of any man or woman in this world on account of faith or race. Let those who accept that avowal, accept it and those who reject it, reject it. My friends and those who know me will, I believe, accept it. Those who wish to reject it are welcome to do so. As far as I am concerned, I do not give a thraneen for their opinion or their esteem. I place the facts before the House, Sir, and I am convinced the honour of this Oireachtas demands that they should be scrupulously and dispassionately investigated and a judgment by this sovereign body of the State pronounced upon them.
I declare these things should be done in a judicial spirit and with no desire either to vindicate my actions or those of Deputy Briscoe. If I have erred in bringing the matter before the House, all I can say is that I have erred after giving the matter the best consideration I could and that, had I to do it all over again, I would do exactly what I am doing now. If Deputy Briscoe has erred, let that be declared. If he has erred through imprudence, there will be nobody in this House to cast a stone at him. We have all been imprudent in our own good time. If he has erred, and has given way to temptation, or has done something that has not been consistent with the position of a Deputy of this House, let that fact be fearlessly recorded and the verdict of this House declared on such conduct. On our readiness to face this most distasteful duty depend, not only the honour of all of us, but I believe the safe survival of representative and democratic institutions in this country.