In a charged atmosphere filled with anticipation, Mr O’Brien took the stage to respond, greeted by resounding applause. Addressing the audience, he expressed his initial hope that Mr J. Dillon’s visit to Limerick would bring forth a clear explanation of his stance on a proposal made forty-eight days prior in Balling.

Regrettably, Mr O’Brien asserted that Mr Dillon’s visit had been marked by an act of poltroonery, a term denoting cowardice, which, in Mr O’Brien’s eyes, placed him even below Mr ‘Mosey’ Roche on the moral scale. The crowd responded with a mix of laughter and approval. Mr O’Brien accused Mr Dillon of avoiding a straightforward answer to the Ballina proposal and, instead, resorting to evasive tactics.

Highlighting the significance of Mr Dillon’s Limerick speech as an opportunity for a clear response, Mr O’Brien lamented that Mr Dillon had chosen to publish a letter confessing his reluctance to face the proposed investigation. In scathing remarks, Mr O’Brien asserted that Mr Dillon’s actions were even more reprehensible than those of Mr ‘Mosey’ Roche, known for his past displays of fear and panic.

Turning to historical context, Mr O’Brien drew parallels between his and Mr Redmond’s (Mr Dillon’s ally) stance several years ago, emphasizing a shared platform and commitment to principles. However, Mr O’Brien asserted that Mr Dillon’s recent actions diverged from this shared history. He accused Mr Dillon of avoiding scrutiny on crucial matters and shirking the responsibility to address the Balboa proposal in Limerick.

Addressing Mr Dillon’s avoidance of public opinion, Mr O’Brien highlighted a previous occasion when Mr Dillon failed to appear in Limerick, leaving Mr O’Brien to face the consequences alone. He accused Mr Dillon of hiding in London and only emerging when it suited him, comparing it to wearing a mask. Despite Mr Dillon’s belated arrival in Limerick, Mr O’Brien emphasized the lack of a satisfactory explanation for his actions.

Returning to the challenge presented in Ballina, Mr O’Brien asserted that Mr Dillon’s letter lacked substantive arguments against his proposal. Mr Dillon’s only approach, according to Mr O’Brien, was to dismiss the proposal as a past-focused compromise. Mr O’Brien countered this, stating that addressing past issues was crucial for healing and progress.

In a bold move, Mr O’Brien proposed that the deliberations on the matter should be entrusted to Burke Cochrane, a distinguished Irish-American figure, whom Mr O’Brien regarded as a fair and impartial adjudicator. He emphasized the integrity of this proposed tribunal and challenged Mr Dillon to face the scrutiny of such a forum.

Concluding his impassioned response, Mr O’Brien affirmed his commitment to pursuing the truth and urged Mr Dillon to face the proposed tribunal. The charged atmosphere reflected the intensity of the ongoing political debate, leaving the audience with a sense of anticipation for the unfolding events in the coming days.

Irish Independent – Monday 12 September 1910