THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1900.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11347, 16 April 1900, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1900.

In another column we publish a letter from Mr. R. A. Carr, in which that gentleman puts forward a series of pleas against the proposed San Francisco service because it is not run by the Union Company, or because that company has not a share in it. Mr. Carr, as we believe, puts the matter in quite a false ground to begin with when lie says that it appears that "Messrs. Spreckels and Co. are making strenuous efforts to prevent the Union Steamship Company becoming partners in the next San Francisco mail contract."' There is no evidence that Messrs. Spreckels and Co. are doing anything of the. kind. That is a matter in which the Messrs. Spreckels could do very little. It is wholly within the domain of Congress. We venture to say also that there is no one in these colonies who would not be glad to see such a service carried on by a company owned and managed in New Zealand or Australia. But it must be kept in mind that the Australian colonies have never taken a very active interest in the Pacific line, deeming themselves to be more directly interested in theother services. There is no chance of getting any great help from the Australian colonies, or in any way from Great Britain. We are therefore compelled to look to the United States, if the line is to be carried on at all. We must accept their conditions or have no San Francisco service. The Legislatures of the Unitod States have their own ideas as to their policy, and are not likely to be easily diverted. The American Government is willing to give a large subsidy to a service crossing the Pacific, and to facilitate in every way the despatch of the mails across the continent, but the contract must be carried out by American-owned vessels. We are not given our choice. And surely Mr. Carr would not take up the position that because the Union Company are not to have a share in the contract, we are to refuse the opportunity of having the speediest mail communication with London of all the colonies, with a steamer every three weeks— service to be carried on by vessels having accommodation which will tempt travellers and tourists from every quarter. That would be making a sacrifice for the Union Company which we do not think we are called on to make—a sacrifice, moreover, which would be of no benefit to the Union Company whatever. It would be a piece of Quixotism to which history does not offer any parallel. Mr. Carr says that the Union Company's claim to an interest in the new arrangement "ought to have precedence of all other considerations." This is a claim which is absurd and ridiculous, The interest of the colony, not the interest of the Union Company, ought "to have precedence of all other considerations." Mr. Carr frankly confesses that the interest of the Union Company is his first consideration. We think the colony comes before the company.

Mr. CaiT then proceeds to set forward in detail the advantages which he claims would be secured in respect to the service by " having an interest held by a local company." But before considering these, we would again remind him that to insist upon a partly local company would mean that these advantages could not be attained, because there would be no service. But leaving that for the moment. His first advantage is that " any complaints or recommendations in connection with the service can be presented in person, and a prompt hearing and consideration can be obtained." We think this, which Mr. Carr assumes, is exceedingly doubtful. The Union Company have hitherto held a third interest in the contract, and it is not to be assumed that they could obtain or could carry any more. They would not therefore have a preponderating power, and could not, if they would, give the "prompt hearing and consideration" spoken of. The new company would, cf course, have agents in New Zealand, having certain powers of action. It

would bo to the interest -of the' new company • quito as much as if the Union 'Company were partners in the concern (perhaps more) to remove any fair or justifiable ground of complaint. They would take means to become aware of these, and would doubtless remove them if possible. We have heard many complaints, especially from Auckland merchants, that the Union Company were not too ready to give *' prompt hearing and consideration" to representations. There are at all events some Auckland merchants who would just as readily deal with an American company as with the Union Company. Next, Mr. Carr contends that "the Union Steamship Compaay understand the conditions and peculiarities of the local carrying trade far better than any foreign company can be expected to do." The American company would take means for their own interest to "understand the conditions and peculiarities'' of the New. Zealand trade, and would act impartially between all districts of the colony. We have already, examples. The direct trade between New Zealand and London is carried on by a local company and two foreign companies, and we do not know that the local company has a monopoly of understanding the local peculiarities of the trade, and endeavouring to accommodate them. If we remember aright, when the local company had more of a monopoly than they have now, the complaints of at all events the Auckland shippers were loud and bitter. They were not studied or comprehended in the least. Simply what served the interests of the company were , considered. Mr. Carr proceeds: - " Therefore it is of paramount importance that this new contract should not be exclusively given to principals who are resident abroad, and who can, if they desire it, impose exorbitant freight and passenger rates, and arbitrary bill of lading conditions." Here again, Mr. Carr maintains his assumption, about " this new contract should not be given," as if the whole thing emanated from New Zealand, and we could give the contract to whom soever we chose. We have no reason to suppose that the company will impose exorbitant freight and passenger rates. They are exposed to a strong competition in regard to passengers from the companies running from Australia, and in respect to freights they will have to create a trade, and will have every inducement to charge low rates. As for the last objection, that the Union Company should have an interest for the sake of the Labour party, Mr. Carr is not more successful in making out a case. New Zealand seamen would have a chance as well as others, and as for expenditure in the colony, we are not sure that the new company would not do quite as much for us as if the Union Company held a third interest. We return to the main point of the case. Here is a chance of obtaining a splendid and unique service, which will give us steady and reliable mail communication with London in twenty-six or twenty-seven days, and make New Zealand premier amongst the colonies in regard to the English mail service, and which will place the colony in an advantageous position in respect to the United States. All these advantages, and many lesser ones which might be enumerated, Mr. Carr asks us to sacrifice unless the Union Company, which after all is not properly or exclusively a colonial company, can obtain at least a third interest. And, moreover, the reasons he gives are not one of them well founded. The colony will probably be quite as well | served by an exclusively American company as by an arrangement by which the Union Company would hold a third interest in this one contract.