A SENIOR Workers Party official told a meeting of the party's ardchomhairle in January 1992 that he had requested money from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union without party authorisation but did not receive any, the Minister for Social Welfare told the High Court yesterday.

Mr De Rossa was answering questions under cross-examination on the seventh day of his libel action against the Sunday Indepen den t over an article by Mr Eamon Dunphy on December 13th, 1992.

It is claimed the newspaper published material which associated Mr De Rossa with activities,such as subversion, armed robbery, drugs, prostitution and protection rackets. The defence admits publishing the words but denies they were published falsely or maliciously as alleged.

Yesterday, Mr Patrick MacEn- tee SC, for Independent Newspapers, asked Mr De Rossa if it ever came to his attention that a senior Workers Party official had admitted he had sought financial assistance from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Mr De Rossa said: "Yes, it did, yes." Mr MacEntee asked when it was. Mr De Rossa said it came to his attention in a meeting of the ardchomhairle in January, 1992, which was dealing with the motion for the special conference for the re-construction of the party.

Mr MacEntee asked who raised it. Mr De Rossa said he did not recall. He was then asked who the official was, to which he replied it was Mr Sean Garland.

Asked who was at the meeting, Mr De Rossa said it was a full meeting of the ardchomhairle so there were probably in excess of 40 people there. He said it was about the middle of January but he could not put a precise date on it - maybe the 24th or 25th.

Mr MacEntee asked him how the matter arose and what Mr Garland had said. Mr De Rossa said Mr Garland had said he had requested the money from the CPSU without authorisation but that he did not receive any. Mr MacEntee asked if Mr Garland had told them how or when. Mr De Rossa said he did not.

When asked if Mr Garland had told them anything about the circumstances of the solicitation, Mr De Rossa said: "No, he did not."

Mr MacEntee asked if Mr Garland had told them how the request was dealt with by the Sovibets. Mr De Rossa said no. Asked if he discussed the revelation and its implication, Mr De Rossa said no.

The revelation came close to the end of the meeting. There was a emotion to reconstitute the party. He had virtually no contact with Mr Garland after that as within weeks there was a special conference after which he resigned from the party.

Mr De Rossa said he chaired the meeting and presumed it was minuted. Mr MacEntee asked if members at the meeting found it surprising. Mr De Rossa said: "Yes, they did." When asked if they found it disturbing, he said there was no reason to be disturbed. It was surprising that Mr Garland had sought money without authorisation.

When asked if he was told how much Mr Garland had sought, Mr De Rossa said he did not know. He said the party was in turmoil at the time. There were clearly two parties at that stage - one wanted to continue the old-style party and the other wanted a new-style party and there was a clear division between them on policy and idealogical issues.

"It was, if you like, the final curtain."

Mr MacEntee asked what Mr Garland said he sought the money for. Mr De Rossa said Mr Garland did not say. Mr MacEntee said perhaps Mr Garland had sought the money for the development of the party. Mr De Rossa said that was not his recollection of what he said. Asked if there was any inquiry as to what the money was for, Mr De Rossa said there was no point in pursuing an inquiry about anything other than the organisation of the special conference.

Mr MacEntee asked was the court to believe that in the middle of a meeting, no matter how fraught, Mr Garland made this revelation that he had been looking for Russian money and nobody asked any questions or said -anything or made any inquiry as: to the implications of that request.

Mr De Rossa said his recollection was that it came shortly before the vote and from then on the question of the future of the party was in the hands of the members.

Mr MacEntee asked in what context the revelation was made and what had gone before it. Mr De Rossa said he could not recall, word for word, but he understood it arose from a report in the newspapers that the document had been located in the archives in the Soviet Union. Members wanted to know if this was true.

When asked what newspapers, Mr De Rossa said he could not recall but there was a lot of comment about it at the time.

Mr MacEntee asked if he was saying that in January, 1992, a Russian letter was being referred to at a meeting of the ardchomhairle. Mr De Rossa said: "No, I'm not saying that."

Mr MacEntee asked what the context was. Mr De Rossa said the context was a question that arose from a report in newspapers that payments had been made to the Workers Party and those reports, it was alleged, derived from the discovery of a document in the archives about a payment.

Mr MacEntee asked if, when he saw the text of the Russian lettei published in The Irish Times in October, 1992, it was not the first time he heard a reference to it.

Mr De Rossa said: "It was. That is disgraceful."

He said that journalists going through the archives in Moscow located a document referring to money being paid to various parties, including the Workers Party, and this appeared in the form of a balance sheet or some such account. He never saw it.

Mr MacEntee asked that when the text of the letter was eventually published, did it give rise to a connection to what Mr Garland had said at the meeting of the ardchomhairle in January, 1992.

Mr De Rossa said: "Obviously, it crossed my mind that this might or might not be the request he referred to but I had no way of knowing if it was or not."

Asked about documents, Mr De Rossa said the comment by Mr Garland was that he had made the request without authorisation and would receive no money so there was no reason to believe there were documents around.

Mr MacEntee asked if the general secretary would normally be authorised to seek funds. Mr De Rossa said Mr Garland was not general secretary at the time. He did not indicate when he sought the funds. Mr Garland was treasurer at the time of the meeting.

Asked if the general secretary or treasurer would have had authority to solicit, Mr De Rossa said not in the sense of soliciting funds from other parties. It would be seen as improper from the political point of view to seek from another political party, which was what the CPSU was.

Mr MacEntee asked if the meeting took the view there was something untoward. Mr De Rossa said there was a shocked silence that he would do something without authorisation. He thought that they were more shocked that there was no authorisation.

Mr MacEntee asked if Mr Garland's conduct was not thought outrageous and was it not an opportunity to be rid of Mr Garland once and for all?

Mr De Rossa asked why should he want to get rid of Mr Garland! once and for all. It was not a hanging offence, it was a breach of party procedures but he was not going to be shot at dawn so to speak.

Mr MacEntee asked if Mr De Rossa was really telling them that when he saw the Russian letter, that it did not ring any bell with him about Mr Garland's revelation. Mr De Rossa said it did not at the time.

Mr MacEntee asked why not; nine months earlier a man had stood up and said he had solicited funds, then here was a letter purportedly signed by the general secretary of the Workers Party, soliciting funds.

Mr De Rossa said questions on previous days of the case related to the content of the letter. He had dealt in some detail with it and indicated it probably did not come from someone who was knowledgable of the party.

Mr Garland did not say he had written a letter. There was no reason for him to make the connection at the time.

Mr De Rossa said Mr MacEntee was implying that Mr Garland was the author of the letter. There was no evidence that Mr Garland was the author of the letter. The letter was a forgery. He said he had no way of knowing if it had anything to do with Mr Garland. He should not have to answer for anybody else in th9 court, he had no involvement in it.

Mr MacEntee asked if it never seriously occurred to him that this was soliciting funds. Mr De Rossa said no, bearing in mind that the letter was dated 1986 and the revelation was in January, 1992, six years after.

Asked if had ever asked any- body at any stage if there was any connection, Mr De Rossa said no.

"Asked if he ever asked Mr Garland if this was his signature and this his solicitation, Mr De Rossa said that since the formation of DL, he had not met or spoken with Mr Garland.

Mr MacEntee asked if Mr Garland was a frequent visitor to the USSR. Mr De Rossa said he had no idea.