CABLE MERGER.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19317, 23 May 1928, Page 9

CABLE MERGER.

ATTACK IN THE HOUSE. STATE SHOULD RETAIN BEAM. (UNITED PRK3S ASSOCIATION —BT ELECTBIC TELEGRAPH —COPYRIGHT.) LONDON, May 21. In the House of Commons, Mr W. J. Baker, a Bristol Labourite, raised a discussion on the Imperial beam system. Me detailed, all the history of wireless since 1923 and said that he understood that a merger between the Maiconi Company and the Eastern Company was a calculated attempt to fo rce the hands of tiie Government. I hey hoped to take over the Post Office wireless and cable system and contiol independent wireless and cable companies in the Dominions. The fact was that the Marconi Company knew how great were the potential profits of the Government beam service, he said. It understood that the Post Office service, although in its infancy, was already showing a handsome profit. The cable companies were frankly afraid of the success ot the beam and entered the merger as the only way of escaping competition. Mr Baker objected to Imperial wireless communications being handled by two groups of which he alleged one had a record of scandalous mismanagement. If it was a fact that a decision had been reached in this matter by the Imperial Wireless Conference, then the Government had adopted a course which was fatal to national interests and the chief result of the conference had been to enrich share manipulators. Corruption Alleged.

"I want to submit to the House calmly and quietly," Mr Baker added, "that Marconi, the name of an illustrious inventor, stands definitely for scandal and corruption. It is lamentable that a scientific inventor should have his name abused, but the fact remains that the Government difficulties are due almost entirely to the financial operations of Marconi's in the Dominions. The gravest possible charges are made in regard to Marconi's operations in the Dominions. Distinguished members of the House of Commons have said things I dare not repeat unless there is proof, and I must leave the matter there. The merger is a definite, calculated attempt to force the hands of the Government, and the attempt is accompanied by a treacherous threat on the part of the companies to pay out the shareholders, cease operations, and let the cables go derelict. They threatened this because, after receiving generous Government assistance, they were unable to compete with the Government beam service. The Opposition's great fear was that the recommendation had been agreed to by the_ conference, and that when the Dominion Governments acquiesced they would have found the bargain concluded." Mr Baker concluded by asking the Government to say why the Secretary for Scotland was asked to look after the Government's interests. He was conspicuous for his geniality and courtesy, but these were not the weapons with which to meet an international gang.—Australian Press Association, United Service. PROGRESS OF ENQUIRY. "MARRIAGE OF TWO ENTITIES." (Received May 22nd, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, May 21.

. . Sir Hamar Greenwood (Constitutionalist) disagreed with Mr Baker's conclusions in favour of State control, which, in view of lack of capital, made for under-development of a great experiment. State-owned cables and the bourn system had been excellent, but it was time they were transferred to a private enterprise. This was the opportunity to make good the bargain on a rising market. Mr C. G. Ammon (Labour,) said: "There seems to be an atmosphere of corruption and wire-pulling about wireless communication and cable companies, almost without parallel in the history of commerce." Captain lan Fraser (Conservative) said that the merger was the marriage of two entities, one of which owned the best method of transmitting messages and the, other owned the best method of collecting and handling them. Ho believed that those in favour of the nationalisation of this industry were serving a political doctrine, rather than the needs of the country. Sir John.' Gilmour (Conservative), speaking as chairman of the Cable Conference, detailed the progress of enquiries. He pointed out,that the problem was not easy to unravel. It involved considerable research. They had to consider repercussion in Australia and the other Dominions and Colonies. The Government accepted no responsibility for the merger, which was subject to a satisfactory arrangement with the Governments of Britain, the Dominions, and India. All possible reaction from the merger had been examined in detail bythe Conference. Sir John Gilmour added that Mr Baker had expressed a fear that the House of Commons had been deprived of an opportunity of considering the problem before the merger became fait accompli. Consultations and communications were still proceeding and he could not say when they would "be concluded. When the Conference made its recommendations the British and Dominion Governments would decide on action before anv definite conclusions were taken. The matter would be brought before the House of Commons. He hoped that this would reassure the doubters. , _ , . , Mr Vernon Hartshorn (Labour) welcomed Sir John Gilmour's announcem The debate then concludued.—Australian Press Association, United Service. ■