I have to read to the House a communication I have received from Mr. Hugh Kennedy, Chief Justice of the Irish Free State.
SPEECH OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL—CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR O'FARRELL.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Before you read that letter, might I ask your ruling as to whether you are not exceeding the privilege of this House by reading a letter from Mr. Kennedy or any other person?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I have considered that carefully. The position is: he considers that a statement, made in public in this House in a debate in this House, which statement is now on record, contains a reference to him which is not true in fact. I think, having regard to his position as Chief Justice, it is only due to him that his contradiction should be read here so that it may be put on our records. Otherwise you will have the charge recorded on our records and you would not have the same opportunity given to one of our principal public men to contradict it. On account of this the contradiction should be put on record.
I only want to protest because I believe you are establishing a precedent. If you admit Mr. Hugh Kennedy's right, you cannot deny the right of certain other individuals.
CATHAOIRLEACH
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." I would have to determine that by the status of the individual.
I maintain that Mr. Hugh Kennedy's position does not enter into it any more than that of any other individual of the country.
I objected on a recent occasion to Senator Bennett's reading a letter from the Chair from the Minister for Justice dealing with the business of the House. Without prejudice to this particular incident, I would ask that you see your way to allow this matter go to the Committee on Standing Orders to see whether, if possible, a Standing Order could not be framed dealing with the matter in general.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I should like that for my own guidance. Not having any guidance except my own judgment, I felt I would be wanting in fairness to a gentleman occupying the high position of Chief Justice if he did not get the opportunity merely—I will not allow the matter to go any further— of placing on the record of the House that he dissents from the statement made in reference to himself. It was made in reference to him as Chief Justice, and my view is that in common fairness he ought to have the opportunity of having placed on the records of the House, side by side with the charge, that he repudiates the charge.
He has the same facilities, and the same channel is open to him, through the public Press, as other citizens. He states that the statement is not sufficiently full, or that there is other matter embodied in it by innuendo to which he objects. Will it be open to a member of the Seanad to raise the whole question again and to give a further explanation of what he did say, and hold interminable controversy?
CATHAOIRLEACH
You may trust to me that there will not be interminable controversy. If I read this letter to the House I shall not permit any discussion, save in so far that the Senator concerned may wish to make a personal explanation. Beyond that I cannot allow any discussion, and if necessary I will give my reasons. I am satisfied that any general discussion would be entirely out of order. It would be equally unfair to preclude the Senator in question from making any personal explanation that he wishes to make. The letter is as follows:—
In the Official Reports of the Debates in Seanad Eireann, Im. 7, Uimh. 18, Col. 1117, the following statement appears in a speech reported to have been delivered by Senator O'Farrell, which was widely reported in the daily papers:
"As a nation I think we are far more successful in the making of laws than in their observance, and this is not confined to any particular section of the community. When we find people in high office mentioning the Constitution and the laws for the express purpose of showing how they can be violated with impunity, when we find acts of that kind applauded by distinguished members of both Houses, by the cream of Dublin commercial and professional life, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thrown in, we must not be surprised if less privileged citizens through the country do not hold the law in the veneration and esteem that might otherwise be the case."
So far as the foregoing statement refers to me, it is without a shadow of foundation, and I beg that you will be good enough to take such steps as may be possible to have this statement corrected on the records of the Seanad.
I do not propose to take any steps of that kind. I propose, merely, to read the letter, so that the fact that he has repudiated this charge should appear with the same publicity on our records as the original statement itself.
I am going to make a personal statement.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Explanation.
Yes, explanation.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Pardon me for saying so, but this is a subject on which if you travel outside a personal explanation may lead to further recrimination outside. I trust to your own good sense to confine your statement to a personal explanation.
I had intended to confine my explanation to the reading of correspondence that has passed between Chief Justice Kennedy and myself. If you debar me from doing that I submit——
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not prevent you doing that, but I take it that the case you are making was presented in that correspondence.
Certainly.
CATHAOIRLEACH
And you will read his reply.
The first letter I received is dated 20th November, and is as follows:—
Sir,
The "Irish Independent" of this morning contains (on page 7, column 4) what purports to be a report of a speech delivered by you yesterday in the Seanad. The following passage occurs in the report:—
"As a nation we were far more successful in making laws than in observing them. This was not confined to any one section of the community.
"When they found people in high office mentioning the Constitution and the laws for the express purpose of showing how they could be violated with impunity, and when they found acts of that kind applauded by distinguished members of both Houses, and by the cream of Dublin commercial and professional life, with the Chief justice thrown in, they must not be surprised if less privileged citizens did not hold the law in the veneration that it might otherwise be held in."
The "Irish Times" of this morning contains (on page 5, column 1) what purports to be a like report. The second paragraph of this report reads as follows:—
"As a nation they were far more successful in making laws than in their observance, and this was not confined to any one section of the community. When they found people in high office mentioning the Constitution and the laws for the express purpose of showing how they could be violated with impunity, and when they found acts of that kind applauded by distinguished members of both Houses, and by the cream of Dublin commercial and professional life, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thrown in, they must not be surprised if less privileged citizens throughout the country did not hold the law in the veneration and esteem that might otherwise be the case."
The passage so reported would, as regards me, convey to the reader a falsehood—not merely personally slanderous, but publicly dangerous to the authority of the law. I find it difficult to believe that you would use your responsible and privileged position to give utterance to so wanton a statement. I feel that there must be some mistake in the report and I wish, therefore, to give you an opportunity of correction, before I take further notice of the matter.
(Signed) HUGH KENNEDY.
I may say that I only received that letter on 25th November. It was delayed in transmission from this House to my private address. My reply is as follows:—
25th November, 1926.
Sir,
Your letter of 20th instant, addressed to me at the Seanad, was only delivered to me at my private address this morning.
Although I cannot say for a certainty that the words reported were those actually used by me in the debate to which you refer, I think in the main they pretty accurately express what I said. I suppose if I desired to follow the example of much more distinguished people I should deny the accuracy of the report.
You must be aware, of course, that my statement had reference to the speech of the Governor-General at the banquet given by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, in the report of which your name figured prominently amongst the guests. The speeches at this meeting were in the main of a distinctly political nature, calculated to influence public opinion in the interest of one political party. In view of the distinguished attendance, the impression conveyed to the general public by these speeches was a distinctly unfortunate one. The representatives of all parties in the Dáil expressed definite disapproval of the unconstitutional statements of the Governor-General. Personally I would have thought that anybody occupying a responsible position in the State, in which the strictest impartiality was necessary, should publicly dissociate himself from the statements made by Mr. Healy at that meeting, particularly in view of the Press reports, which indicated that the speech was applauded and hugely enjoyed throughout.
My reference to you was merely intended to convey the fact that you were present, and thereby added an additional importance to the assembly. If you think that such a statement was an unwise one, and you so desire, I am quite prepared to write to the Press indicating your wish to be dissociated from the applause which greeted the unconstitutional remarks of the Governor-General on the occasion in question. It is because I see the great necessity for people occupying important public positions, in which the strictest impartiality is necessary, keeping aloof from such meetings, that I ventured to indicate some of those who were present at this partisan political gathering, in the hope that they would follow the good example set by the President and publicly dissociate themselves from the gravely unconstitutional and disorderly speech made by the principal guest of the evening, and reported as being loudly applauded, so that the general public might have a definite assurance that presence at this gathering did not indicate any acquiescence in the political turn which the proceedings took.
(Signed) J. T. O'FARRELL.
The next letter I received from the Chief Justice was dated 27th November, as follows:—
Sir,
Your letter of the 25th instant is no answer to mine of the 20th instant.
Your statement in the Seanad, which you admit to have been accurately reported in the daily Press, contains a specific positive charge that I applauded, that is to say expressed approval of the mention by a person "in high office" of "the Constitution and the laws for the express purpose "of showing how they could be violated with impunity."
I called your attention to that positive statement, assuming that you would immediately correct the report or withdraw it as something into which you were accidentally betrayed. Your reply is an evasion, and exhibits no regret for a quite unjustifiable use of parliamentary privilege. Your original statement, therefore, stands as an impudent and mischievous falsehood made under cover of the privilege of the Seanad. Your wanton dragging in of my name in a place where I could not immediately challenge it, under the chairmanship of one of the principal speakers on the occasion you have now identified, whom your discretion spared, was a piece of mean cowardice as well as a reckless falsehood.
I must take my own measures to correct it. I am sending the correspondence to the Cathaoirleach.
(Signed) HUGH KENNEDY.
My reply is dated 30th November, and it is as follows:—
Dear Sir,
I have your letter of 27th instant, and very much regret that you should see fit to indulge in such an unseemly and unreasoning outburst, which is hardly in keeping with the dignity and responsibility attaching to the high office you occupy. Neither is it in accordance with the actual facts. Does it not strike you that the indiscriminate use of intemperate and irresponsible abusive statements by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is more likely to bring the Law into contempt than anything else that may be said or done by other persons, whether inside or outside the Oireachtas?
You accuse me, amongst many other things, of "mean cowardice." If I were unkind, I might suggest that the term "cowardice" could more fittingly be attributed to a person who privately disapproves of an unconstitutional act, but has not the moral courage to say so in public. Personal modesty or a dread of the limelight might be advanced as a reason for this disinclination to give public expression to one's faith, were it not for the fact that sufficient time has not elapsed to enable the public to forget a very emphatic public speech in connection with an important Bill before the Oireachtas made by the same person, and referred to afterwards by a Cabinet Minister in the Dáil as a speech not quite in keeping with the high office of the person who made it.
I cannot agree that I have abused my parliamentary privilege in the slightest way, although I should certainly feel that I had violated the privilege of being taken seriously by most responsible people if I had been the author of a document such as your last letter to me. I regret, therefore, that until you can see your way to write in a manner more in keeping with ordinary courtesy and elementary public decency, I must refuse to continue this correspondence.
(Signed) J. T. O'FARRELL.
That is all the correspondence. I am afraid it tended rather to generate more heat than light. As a matter of simple fact, what I meant to convey by the phrase "with the Chief Justice thrown in" was that he was present and thereby added weight and importance to the occasion. I received his first letter five days after my statement was published in the Press. Although I naturally resented the imperious and domineering terms in which the letter was couched, I explained to him what my words were meant to convey, and I offered to write to the Press conveying his repudiation of the alleged statement that he applauded the speech of the Governor-General. I have read for the House his amazing reply. To my written answer to that letter I have nothing to add.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The matter must now close, except I wish to say that on the occasion in question, when the Senator made the statement complained of, he was really a little too quick for me. Had I appreciated the importance of the subject matter he was about to refer to, I should certainly have ruled it out of order. The Senator said it very quickly, and I came to the conclusion that if I was to go back on it after he had delivered himself of it, I would probably be adding an exaggerated importance to it, an importance more than the Senator himself desired or intended. It was distinctly out of order for several reasons, but I will only mention one. The accuracy of the report of the speech in question, upon which the Senator based the charge, had been officially and publicly denied by the Governor-General himself. Therefore, any debate or discussion would be on pure hypothesis. You would have, on the one side, the report in the public Press, and on the other the specific denial of accuracy by the Governor-General.
But not by the reporters.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Therefore, I could not allow a discussion to proceed on the basis of a hypothesis, and certainly not on the basis that the Governor-General's statement was not to be accepted. Be that as it may, I had not an opportunity for the reason that I state—my friend the Senator's adroitness.
I never mentioned the Governor-General by name, and you would have some trouble to indentify him from my references.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I had no trouble about that myself, and you had no trouble yourself, Senator, from the correspondence. I only want to say that it would be adding a new terror to social functions of that kind if every person present at a gathering, where politicians of all kinds were represented, is to be taken as not only being responsible for but applauding every sentence uttered by every speaker at that dinner in the exuberance and exhilaration of post-prandial oratory. I doubt very much if any of us would like to apply that principle to the utterances of Senators.