PACIFIC CABLE.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18675, 26 April 1926, Page 9

PACIFIC CABLE.

DUPLICATION SCHEME BOARD'S SENTIMENTS. (BT CABl*—?uss AsaodAnojr—OOPTBIOHT.) (AUSTHALIAS ASD S.Z. CA3LB AssociATioir.) LONDON, April 23. The Hon. C. Murphy, Canadian Post-master-General, has sent to Mr Lucien T. Pacaud, Canadian representative in London, a voluminous answer to the Pacific Cable Board's memorandum replying to Canada's desire to terminate the partnership in the Pacific cable. He asserts that it is misleading and contrary to fact to say that Canada consented in January, 1921, to the Fanning Island-Bamfield duplication. The consent applied to the laying of a cable between New Zealand and Honolulu for the purpose of linking up the commercial cable. As regards the statement as to the advisability of the Fanning Island-Hbnolulu connexion being modified owing to the prosperity of the Pacific cable, from which a largo reserve had been built up, Mr Murphy asserts that the reserve was achieved by allowing two-thirds of the original debt to remain unpaid and failing to distribute the profits, which is a violation of the purposes of the original Act. Had the Fanning Island-Hono-lulu connexion been made in 1920 the United States traffic would have increased instead of decreased, as it had done through the Board's inertia. Even when carrying the United States traffic the Fanning Island-Bamfield cable had idle daily periods, so the claim was untenable that even the transfer of that traffic would have left the cable inadequate for Empire traffic. The Board was so little conoerned with sentimental or Imperial considerations of the All Red cable, states Mr Murphy, that in 1920 it recommended negotiations with the United States Government for a New Zealand-Hono-lulu duplication. The first intimation that this idea was dropped was Australia's stipulation of the avoidance of Honolulu in favour of a British Columbian landing. Therefore the abandonment was not based on the Board's considerations of Imperial policy. Mr Murphy further points out that when the present duplication is completed it will have 190 letters per minute greater speed than the section to the south of Fiji. BOARD INDICTED. diversion of funds. (Australian ajtd n.z. cable association.) LONDON, April 23. Mr Murphy asserts that the Board is responsible for any delay in consulting Canada, who learned from the chairman that it was not intended to consult auy Governments before awarding contracts. Mr Murphy quotes Mr Pacaud as reporting, "That as far as I am personally concerned, and I believe Mi Campbell Stuart is of the same mind, we gave no consent for the acceptance of tenders for duplication, but both pleaded for an extension of time." Mr Murphy declares that Sir Joseph Cook and the engineer, Mr Heurtley, in April, 1926, described the prices as too high, and even when reductions were made, Mr Heurtley, in April of last year, was of the same opinion. Despite both the Canadian representatives' protests, the Board decided to award the contracts. This was five months after the Canadian representatives' protest. Suoh ,a departure from the plan for the New Zealand-Honolulu Line should have been submitted to the partner Governments. It was no good arguing that it was only a matter of detail, said Mr Murphy, when it represents sis times the expenditure to which Canada's assent had been asked in 1922. The Board's action was illegal and indefensible, and its illegality was on a par with the illegal diversion of funds in regard to which the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was now proposing legislation to relieve them of the onus of their .illegal conduct. This legislation, coupled with Sir Timothy Coghlan's scathing indictment of the Board's methods, and the making of appointments for family and personal reasons, emphasised the need for a complete overhaul of. the Board and its various ramifications. Although this cabjp was laid in 1928. Sir T. Coghlan recommended its replacement last year with a speedier par-malloy cable.