CABLE AND BEAM

Northern Advocate, 23 May 1928, Page 5

CABLE AND BEAM

MERGER DENOUNCED

MARCONI’S NAME DEGRADED.

“■SCANDALOUS RECORD.”

(Australian Press Assn. —United Service.) LONDON, May 21.

In the House of Commons Mr \V. J. Baker (Labour, East Bristol) raised a discussion on the Imperial beam wireless. He detailed all the history of wireless since 1923, and said he understood that the merger between the Mareoni and Eastern companies was a calculated attempt to force the hands of the Government. They hoped to take over the Post Office wireless and cable system and control 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. It was understood that the Post Service, although in its infancy, was already showing a handsome profit. The cable companies were frankly afraid of the success of the beam service and entered into the merger as the- only way of escaping competition.

Air Baker objected to Imperial 1 wireless commuieations being handled by two groups, of which he alleged one had a record of scandalous mismanagement. If it were the fact that a decision had been reached in this matter by the Imperial cable and 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. Continuing, Mr ;Baker said: “I want to submit to the House, calmly and quietly, that Marconi, the name of the 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’s difficulties are, due almost entirely to the financial operations of the Marconi Company in the Dominions. The gravest possible charges are made in regard to those operations. 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, threaten this because, after receiving generous Government assistance, they are unable to compete with the Government beam service. The Opposition's great fear is that.the recommendations were . agreed to by the conference, and that when the Dominions’ Governments aequeiesced 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 geniality and courtesy,, but these were not the weapons with, which to meet the international’gang. Sir Hamar Greemvood disagreed with Mr Baker’s conclusions in favour of State control, which, in view -of lack of capital, made for under-development of the groat experiment. The Stateowned cables and beam system had been excellent, but it was time they transferred to private enterprise. This was the opportunity to make a good bargain on a rising market. Mr C. G. Amman (Labour) saidr “There seems to be an atmosphere of corruption and wire-pulling about wireless communication and cable companies almost without parallel in the historv 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, while the other owned the best

method of collecting and handling. He believed that those in favour of nationalisation of this industry' were serving a political doctrine rather than the needs of the country'.

Sir John Gihnour, speaking as chairman of the (“able conference, detailed the progress of the inquiries. He pointed out that the problem was not easy to unravel. It involved considerable research. They had to consider repercussion in Australia and other dominions and colonies. The Government accepted no responsibility 1 for the merger, which was subject to a satisfactory arrangement with the Governments of Britain, the Dominions and India. All possible reaction from th 1 merger had been examined in detail by the conference. Mr Baker had expressed fear that the Commons had been deprived of an opportunity of considering -the problem before the merger became a fait accompli. Consultations ami communications were still proceeding. He could not aay when they would be concluded. When the ■'conference made- its recommendations the British and Dominion Governments would decrd.e on action. Before any definite conclusions were taken the ' matter would be brought before the House. He hoped this would rei assure the doubters. Mr Vernon Hartshorn (Labour) wel- ! corned Sir .1. Gilmnur’s announcements land the debate concluded.