|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, Márta 8adh, 1928.(Thursday, March 8th, 1928.)
Dr. Lorcan Sherlock called and examined.Chairman. 1. You are Returning Officer for the Borough Constituency of Dublin North? —Yes. 2. You have got a copy of the Terms of Reference of this Committee. The Committee would like to have whatever assistance you can give it with regard to the identity of James Larkin, who was nominated as a candidate for the Borough Constituency of Dublin North at the General Election of September, 1927—First of all, I should like to say that any statement I am making is being made because of the request of the Committee and of you personally, as Speaker of the Dáil, and is not being made of my own volition. Before the nominations, I heard that Mr. James Larkin, senior, was to be a candidate for Dublin North I also heard that objections were to be made against his nomination by certain parties in Dublin who did not agree with his views. Rightly or wrongly, I think it my duty, as Returning Officer, to treat every prospective candidate with punctilious fairness. I, accordingly, thought it my duty to intimate to Mr. Larkin that objections were going to be lodged with me against his being nominated. I sent word to him that I would like to discuss the matter with him. Mr. James Larkin, senior, called on me and saw me in Green Street Courthouse. I cannot give the date. I cannot give the exact conversation, but I can give, shortly, the gist of it. I told him about the rumours I had heard. I intimated to him that I was taking Counsel’s opinion as to what were my rights and responsibilities and my limitations. He said, “We have looked into the matter, too. You have no power to reject my nomination, if the paper is correct. I have got Counsel’s opinion on the point.” He thanked me for my courteous treatment, and the interview ended. During the preparations for the contest, I wrote to Mr. James Larkin at Unity Hall, as I wrote to every other candidate who had been nominated, sending him permits to allow the candidate, the agent and one other representative of the candidate to attend the counting of the votes. May I say that most of the candidates, whether elected or not, were not courteous enough to reply to the letter that I forwarded to them. Mr. Larkin’s agents were very polite, because on the 14th September, from Unity Hall, Dublin, I got the following acknowledgment—I think it was the only acknowledgement I got:— “Dear sir, “I have to acknowledge on behalf of Mr. James Larkin the receipt of permits to allow candidate, agent and one other representative to attend the counting of votes, for North City. “Yours faithfully, “J. Larkin, Jr.” I do not think I can give any further information upon which the Committee might form its conclusions. 3. Will you hand in that letter?—Certainly. (Letter handed in.)* Chairman.—That concludes the evidence which Dr. Sherlock can give by way of statement. Does any member of the Committee desire to put him any questions? Deputy Morrissey. 4. Dr. Sherlock stated that he heard rumours that objections would be made to Mr. Larkin’s nomination. Might I ask if representations were made to Dr. Sherlock by a solicitor, that Mr. James Larkin was not eligible for nomination or election?—Such representations were made to me officially by Messrs. James O’Connor & Co., Solicitors, Dame Street. Those representations, however, were made after the interview that I had had with Mr. James Larkin. 5. Did that firm of solicitors supply you with or send to you a certificate from the Bankruptcy Court?—They supplied me with a certificate that a Mr. James Larkin, upon the —— day of ——, had been adjudicated a bankrupt. 6. It was previous to your getting that that you had seen Mr. Larkin and not subsequently?—Previously. 7. Deputy Cooper.—Did Mr. James Larkin, senior, hand in his own nomination paper?—No. The paper was handed in to me by a Mr. John Bohan. 8. Chairman.—Could Dr. Sherlock give the Committee the nomination paper itself or a copy of it?—I like to cut down my work as much as possible, and I only take one nomination paper from each candidate when I find that it is accurate. I brought with me here the entire of the nomination papers for Dublin City, North. 9. Deputy Cooper.—For the purpose of having the matter on the Minutes of Evidence, I should like to know how Mr. James Larkin is described in that nomination paper. Chairman.—The document will be handed in. Dr. Sherlock.—The description was “James Larkin, Unity Hall, 31 Marlboro’ Street, Trade Union Official,” but I insisted that the description on the paper should be one that would identify him before the electorate. The whole intention of the description is to enable a candidate to be identified amongst the body of the electorate. I got them to put in “General Secretary, Workers’ Union of Ireland.” 10. Chairman.—Is that on the nomination paper?—It is on the nomination paper. 11. You were satisfied yourself that the person being nominated was Mr. James Larkin, senior—or were you so satisfied? —I do not think I am bound to express an opinion of that kind. 12. Deputy MacEntee.—I presume an opinion of your own on that matter, though rather valuable, would not be legal proof?—My view is that I can only give you evidence and that must draw your own deductions. It would be an impertinence on my part to draw deductions for the purpose of guiding the Committee. 13. Deputy O’Sullivan.—With regard to the conversation which Mr. Larkin had with Dr. Sherlock prior to nomination, might I ask if they actually discussed then the concrete question of the bankruptcy of James Larkin?—I indicated to him that the objection would be on the ground that he was an undischarged bankrupt and that I would be asked to rule his paper out on that ground. I told him that I was getting Counsel’s opinion, and I advised him to get an opinion, too, and to act upon it. He said that I would have no power to rule out on that ground, and that he had Counsel’s opinion. (Nomination paper handed in.)† Chairman.—Does that answer Deputy O’Sullivan’s question? Deputy O’Sullivan.—Yes. The question discussed was the concrete question of the bankruptcy. 14. Deputy Duggan.—Mr. Larkin did not say that he was not the James Larkin who was the bankrupt?—He did not. 15. Deputy Little.—Did he say he was? 16. Deputy Morrissey.—Dr. Sherlock said, in the course of his statement, that, in the discussion he had with Mr. Larkin, Mr. Larkin said he had Counsel’s opinion, and added: “You have no power to reject my nomination”?—He said I had no power to reject the nomination. I would not say the word “my” was used. I am, however, entitled to go this far—the atmosphere of the conversation was based on the idea, between him and me, that he was the candidate. Deputy MacEntee. 17. I suppose it would have been possible, between the date of your conversation with Mr. Larkin and the date of the nominations, for Mr. Larkin to decide that he would not be the candidate?— That is perfectly obvious. 18. You stated that you compelled Mr. Larkin to extend the description in the nomination paper by adding the words “General Secretary, Workers’ Union of Ireland.” Have you any proof that he was, in fact, the General Secretary of that Union?—I knew, as a juror in Dublin for some considerable period, that he was generally recognised as General Secretary of the Workers’ Union of Ireland. It is my duty to try and get on the nomination paper a description of a man which will identify him amongst the body politic of electors. 19. Beyond the knowledge you would have had from a previous occasion of his holding that position, he might, in the interval, without your knowledge, have ceased to occupy it?—I had no information that he was the General Secretary of the Union at that very moment. But I want to go further than that and say that if a man had been publicly noted and known as the organiser of a particular movement, or the General of a particular army, and had ceased to hold that particular position at a given moment, I would conceive I was carrying out the duties of my office in endeavouring to get a description by which he was widely and popularly known heretofore amongst the electors—even though at the moment he did not hold that office. Deputy MacEntee.—I should not like you to think that I am casting any reflection on you. 20. Deputy Morrissey.—If Mr. James Larkin was not, at the moment of nomination, General Secretary of the Workers’ Union, he would not have put that down in the nomination paper?—Even if he was not General Secretary and if I knew he was not General Secretary at the very moment, if I believed the description would identify him amongst the vast body of electors, I would allow it to go through. I believe, in doing that, I would be doing my duty. 21. Deputy O’Hanlon.—Did he authorise an agent?—There was an authorisation of an Edward Muldowney, of 31 Marlboro’ Street. I think his name is to be found on the nomination paper as seconder. I have not got the formal nomination of the agent. 22. In your recollection, this nomination was authorised by himself?—It was authorised by a James Larkin. The Witness was thanked by the Chairman and withdrew. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
