PACIFIC CABLE

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 47, 19 November 1925, Page 9

PACIFIC CABLE

CANADA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM PARTNERSHIP RECOMMENDED BY POST-MASTER-GENERAL CONSTERNATION ON THE BOARD The Canadian Postmaster recommends the withdrawal of Canada from the Pacific cable project, in consequence of the action of a majority of the board •in connection with awarding contracts for cable duplication. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Copyright. Sydney, November 18. The Pacific Cable Board is in great consternation as a result of the receipt of a communication from the Canadian office to the effect that the Canadian Postmaster-General, the Hon. C. Murphv, • is recommending the withdrawal of Canada from the partnership in the Pacific cable project, in consequence of the action of a majority of the board in connection with awarding contracts for the duplication of the cable from Bamfield to Fanning Island and Fiji, and providing for the expenditure of £2,260,000.' Mr. Murphy points out that Canada’s interest in the contracts, which were awarded despite her protests and in defiance of the board’s own law of established practice, exceeds £600,000. Mr Murphy states that the decision to Invite tenders was taken in the absence of the Canadian representatives, and he therefore cabled Canada’s willingness to withdraw from the partnership, as the original purpose for which Canada entered had long since been accomplished. He suggested that Canada should receive a share of the surplus, otherwise more than £600,000 of her money will be spent, illegally, and with a total disregard of her wishes. He points out that, as apparently the future prosperity of the cable is now assured, Canada’s further assistance is not required. The main purpose of the'cable. is to link England, Australia, and New Zealand. The two Dominions mentioned were commercially interested, because it facilitates their business, but Canada has no such commercial interest and meantime demands five-eight-eenths of her share of the accumulated The board has replied that compliance with Canada’s wishes will require the passage of another Imperial Act, as the board is not empowered to pay out funds, the Act directing that funds are only to be employed for the laying and management of cables, lhe board further contends that Canada has no title to any part of the board’s savings, as that country paid no part of the origma capital, which the National Debt Commissioners of Great Britain wholly ad- ' a Mr ed Murphy, in reply to the board, contends that Canada is entitled to a share, and asserts that the board, in citing Canada’s agreement of 1921 to the duplication of the cable between Honolulu and New Zealand, wrongly assumes that this authorised the present expel - diture. The board also wrongly assumed -that a letter by one of Canada s representatives on the . board bound Canada to the duplication from Bamficld to Fiji, and maintains that it only referred to the duplication between New Zealand and Fiji.—Press Assn.

(Rec., November 18, 10.25 p.m.) ! Loudon, November 17. It is stated that the. Pacific Cable Board is hopeful that Canada will not pursue the subject to the extent of dissociating from the board. Hie matter probably will be discussed at the board’s next meeting, when Canadas final word is expected.—Sydney Sun Cable. '