THE CABLE DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7785, 3 November 1886, Page 5

THE CABLE DISPUTE.

OPINIONS OP THE AUSTRALIAN PRESS.

Melbourne, November 2. Commenting on the increase of the cable tariff the Argus yesterday said the' dispute between the New Zealand Government and the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, has at length reached a crisis that threatens to paralyse all traffic. In accordance with the notice that has been given for some months, the cable rate to New Zealand is now raised to 10s for a message of 10 words, and Sir Julius Vogel has retaliated by imposing a terminal charge of 4s on every such message, and of 5d on every additional word; the total coßt of a telegram, therefore, will amount to the absurd sum of 16s 6d for 10 words, and Is Sd for every word in addition. But in this wholesale augmentation of the rates, the whole loss must suddenly fall upon that portion of the public whose business compels them to use the cable. The straggle between the Government and the company is like a species of irregular warfare, in which the sole damage is inflicted upon innocent people who have a right to expect that their interests will be regarded. It is obvious that thegcombatants will harass the ; business community more than they will harm each other. Because Sir Julius Vogel will neither contribute a subsidy nor consent to arbitration, the expense of telegraphing is increased, and then because the charges are raised the New Zealand Treasurer, by a perfectly unique piece of reasoning, burdens the public with a further impost. Thus Australians must either refrain from sending telegrams, or they will be unnecessarily mulcted, not to punish the company but to gratify a whim on the part of Sir J. Vogel. The result will be that traffic will decrease and that a large number of people both in these colonies and in New Zealand will be subject to needless annoyanoe. The present week is the most inconvenient in which the high rates could come into force. It will, however, exemplify most strikingly the annoyance that will ensue until Sir Julius Vogel is willing to disauss the matter, or is deprived of bis present position in the conduct of affairs. In carrying on the strife there are several courses open to the New Zealand Government, all of which involve considerable expense to the country without any reasonable prospect of immediate gain. The terminal charges, to which resort is already had, can only tend to destroy the traffic. They are in the nature of a fine inflicted upon the colonies rather than on the company ; for even if the latter were forced to close the cable for a time their loss would be small when compared with that entailed on merchants and the general public. If Sir J. Vogel had wished to isolate New Zealand, to weaken its connection with Australia, and render it remote and insular, he could hardly have found a more effective method. It would have been less harassing to test the legality of the company's action, on which there is some difference of opinion. The New Zealand Government deny their right to increase the charges under any circumstances, and if this question were put to the issue the difficulty would be partly cleared away, But a lawsuit would be costly, protracted, and uncertain, since Mr. Pender has been acting under the bests legal advice, and if the case went against her New Zealand would both lose money and win an unenviable refutation. The third expedient, that of laying an opposition cable, is also surrounded with disadvanta ges. If a new Pacific line were constructed a large subsidy would be required for its maintenance, and then the new company would have a difficulty in competing against the present duplicated onble. Mr. ' Pender absolutely promises for the same subsidy to furnish a much cheaper and more effective service than could be provided by a rival company with only one cable. It would be better, therefore, to hold him at bis word, and arrange for cheap messages until the increase of traffic, or reasons of strategy, warrant the laying of another cable. There will be a difficulty in acquitting Sir J. Vogel of tha principal share of blame in the present deadlock. It is true that the New Zealand Parliament offered to continue the subsidy for five years, and that the company demanded a ten-years' term; still Sir J. Vogel has arbitrarily declined to carry out the proposal when the chairman of the com<pany professes his willingness to aocept it. What we now suggest is that the present rates on ordinary messages remain as things are now; that the rates on Press messages should be reduced to 3d a word, on the Frees guaranteeing to supply a revenue equal to the average of Press payments during the last three years,- and that the Government undertake to give twelve months' notice before any new cable is opened. In this there is practically no contract. The Press ib mads to take care of itself, and ordinary messages are left at a high tariff, in order that the Government may escape from the subsidy, and be free to plunge into the expense of cable construction. Nothing is proposed in the publio interest. If the subsidy is continued a general reduction would follow to the advantage of all the colonies, but at present Australia is made to pay for the New Zealand Treasurer's humours and caprices. He is acting in direct opposition both to Victoria and to New South Wales. The Postmaster-General of the latter colony advised him to take the simple and politic course of gaining a reduction in the tariff, and leaving the question of competition to the future. The Victorian authorities claim the broad principle that the colonies unite in paying a subsidy that would enable the rates for European cable messages to be substantially reduced. Sir J. Vogel, however, refuses to hear either of subsidies or reductions in any shape. He flouts an idle scheme not only against the company but against the wants and wishes of the two most populous colonies. He declines advice, rejects arbitration, and follows an isolated policy that will annoy both Australia and New Zealand. The high rates are a direct tax upon the publio, which might easily have baen avoided ; but as Victoria pays liberally for communication with Europe, and as she is interested in maintaining a complete intercolonial system, the matter cannot be allowed to rest. If Sir J. Vogel stands out against the other colonies he will have himself to blame for any retaliatory measures that they may be obliged to adopt. Sydney, November 2. The Sydney Morning Herald Bays :—" It will give the publio no pleasure to learn that the rates for cable messages to New Zealand have been doubled. This is the outcome of the prolonged negotiations which have taken place on the proposed basis for a new rate agreement to take the place of that whioh has expired, viz., the continuance of the subsidy, £5000 from New Zealand and £2500 from New South Wales, for a period of live years, and the reduction of the tariff to 5s for ten words and 3d per word for Press messages. The company agreed to these rates, but refused to accept less than ten y?ars as the duration of the subsidy. New Zealand would not consent to any longer term than five years, and after much negotiating this point was conceded by the company. The New Zealand Government then objected to pay any subsidy at all, upon whioh the company represented that instead of lowering the rates they must raise them. New South Wales was willing to come to terms, but New Zealand was obdurate. Sir J. Vogel was of opinion that although the company could not be called upon to lower the rate, it was prevented by an agreement from raising them under any circumstances. Bat the company entertained quite a different view, and it answers Sir J. Vogel's argument by notifying that from today (Monday) the tariff will be 10s for ten words, and 5d for each additional word. As a counter move, New Zea'and imposes a terminal charge of is per word, and with the New South Wales termiial charge of 6d, the cost of New Zealand messages will now be 14s 6d for ten words, and Is 5d for each additional word, general and press messages to be charged alike. These rates are, of course, almost prohibitory, and the adoption of such a tariff will be a serious thing for business people in the Australian colonies and New Zealand. The responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of things appears to us to rest with the New Zealand Government, which has acted all through without the slightest consideration for the interests of the public. The company has shown no regard for the publio either, and the result of the quarrel is that people have to pay twice as much as they did before. The New Zealand Government has blundered sadly. Sir J. Vogel may be right in saying that it would be better for the colony to lay a cable I of its own than to pay a subsidy to the i company, but'a cable cannot be laid in »

Week, and it wh absurd to fight the company when the company had the whip hand. If St was intended to throw the company overboard and to have a Government cable, action should have been taken in time, so that the new cable might have been put down before the agreement with the company expired. As the idea was not thought of Until too late, the beat course would have been to accept the company's offer to reduce the rates in consideration of an extension of the subsidy for the lesser term of five years. It may gratify the amour propre of the New Zealand Government to fight the quarrel to the bitter end, but unfortunately the public bears the cost."

London, October 27The half-yearly general meeting of the Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Company (Limited) was held on the 27th October, at Winchester House, Old Broad-street.

Mr. John Pender (ohairman) presided, and in moving the adoption of the report, said that the gross receipts for the half-year had been £224,843. being a doorcase of £34.633 compared with the corresponding period of 1885, That decrease was in some measure owing to the general depression of trade, but owing to the absence of any stirring incidents, such as those whioh were of con* tinual occurrence last —the Egyptian campaign, the Penjdeh incident, and the hostilities between China and France. Their revenue was never so large as during the sitting of the Berlin Conference, to whioh they were invited to send representatives. They were urged at that time on all sides to lower their tariffs, and they partly yielded to the views of the Australian representatives, encouraged by the growth of traffic, Whioh as regarded Australia for some years previously showed an annual increase ot over ten per oent. It was a singular circumstance that within a few months after the conference, when they were committed to make some reductions in the tariff, the traffic began to show signs of falling off, whioh had continued ever since. There wai nothing, however, in the present deorease of traffic whioh might not be altered six months hence, but unfortunately since the olose of the half-year the traffic had shown a proportionately larger decrease than in the first six months, the diminution having amounted to £30,000 in the quarter ended September last. Only a portion of that amount was attributable to the reduotion of the tariff whioh oame into force in July, and that diminution had been aggravated by their misfortune last month, when both of their ludia-Penang cables were simultaneously interrupted for the first time since that portion of their system was duplicated three years ago. The usual interim dividend at the rate of 5 per cent per annum had been paid, but owing to the decrease of revenue, they had considered it prudent not to pay any bonus, but to carry forward the whole of the balance of £34.950. If they could declare a bonus at the end of the financial year, they would do so. He alluded at some length to the negotiations which had been going on with the New Zealand Government for the renewal of the subsidy paid to them by that Government and the Government of New South Wales. The latter had been quite prepared to renew the subsidy for ten years, but the New Zealand Government •aid they would only do so for five years. The company finally consented to accept the five years, as the New Zealand Parliament had decided on that period, and negotiations were then entered into with Sir Julius Vogel to obtain the renewal of the subsidy for that period. This, however, had been declined by Sir Julius Vogel as well as the offer of the company to refer the matter to arbitration, and it was stated that their reason for declining was that they thought that any subsidy would interfere with the laving of an opposition cable. He doubted if the people of .New Zealand would approve of the spending of money on an opposition cable when they could get. from the present company a oheaper and more efficient system of telegraphy than conld possibly be produced by another company having a cable, this company's system being duplicated. He believed there was no fear af any opposition company being subsidised by either the colonial or home Government. If they would give the company £1,000,000 a year, whioh was the subsidy asked by the opposition company, they would give the Government a tariff of 2s fid instead of 4a. As the company had exausted all reasonable means of bringing about an amicable arrangement they had decided from Monday next to raise the rate for intercolonial telegrams between Sydney and New Zealand from 6s to 10s per ten words. Their bargain with New Zealand was that after the expiration of the subsidy they were bound to give this company the same accommodation for the next ten years whether the tariff was raised or not. They now, however, threatened to take away that accommodation, but if they did so the company would shut the door and lock it till they gave an amount that would enable the company to carry on the tariff with a fair profit. The Marquis of Tweeddale seconded the motion, and the report was unanimously adopted.