THE CABLE RATES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 767, 12 November 1886, Page 19

THE CABLE RATES.

[From the Cable Superintendent, Wakapuaka.]

The following telegram has been received by the Cable Superintendent at La Perouse :

“Sydney, 3rd November. John Squire, Esq., Superintendent New Zealand Cable. We have to-day sent the following to the Postmaster-General, New Zealand : —‘From late telegrams in newspapers it seems you are only charging your public old rates on messages sent from New Zealand, using the four shillings to make up Company’s charge of ten shillings. I think it unfair that senders

of messages from here to New Zealand should be asked to recoup your loss and bear all the disadvantages of the position, and am clearly of opinion now that the proper course to ado t is not to collect any New Zealand terminal charges from senders in this colony, but to collect cable rate to Wakapuaka and our own terminal charge only, leaving New Zealand to fix and collect their own land tariff both ways. We shall commence this arrangement to-morrow, 4th November. — (Signed) F. B. Suttor, Postmaster-General, N.S.W.’” To this the Superintendent replied as follows :—“Hon. T. B. Suttor, PostmasterGeneral, Sydney. Ihavereceivedyour message giving me a copy of telegram you have forwarded to the Postmaster-General of New Zealand. The Superintendent of Telegraphs in that Colony has been informed that, as your Government will cease from to-morrow to collect the New Zealand terminal charges on telegrams from Australia, the Company cannot accept any responsibility in regard to the same, and that we shall hand all such telegrams to his Department for onward transmission, with that understanding. ” The following message has been forwarded to the Superintendent of Posts and Telegraphs, Wellington:—“The PostmasterGeneral of New South Wales has to-day notified this Company that on and after to-morrow, the 4th instant, his Department will cease to collect the terminal rates imposed by your Government on telegrams from Australia. I therefore beg to give you notice that the Company cannot bo held accountable for the same, and that tho said telegrams will be handed to your Department with that understanding. —W. W. Browning, Superintendent, Cable Bay, Nelson.”

The following reply has been received from, the Superintendent of Telegraphs, New Zealand :—" W. W. Browning, Esq., Superintendent, Cable Company, Wakapuaka.—l am instructed to say that we decline to receive messages on any snch condition. We adhere to our terminal rates. This is in reply to your message of this morning. Signed, C. Lemon.” The following reply has been forwarded to the Superintendent of Posts and Telegraphs, Wellington : —“ln reply to your telegram of to day, I have the honor to inform you that this Company will hand to your Department all incoming intercolonial telegrams on the conditions mentioned in my telegram of . to-day ; and that as the onus of stopping such messages will rest with your Department, the Company will not be in any way responsible.— W. W. Browning, Superintendent Eastern Extension Telegraph Company.—Cable Bay, 4th November, 1886.” We have received the following by telegraph from the Cable Superintendent at Wakapuaka :—The Melbourne Argus of the Sth has the following:—“The Telegraph, authorities in New Zealand are accepting the control of telegrams sent from Australia, whether the terminal charge of 4s 6d imposed by Sir Julius Vogel may have been collected on them or not. Mr Derham has learnt that Victorian telegrams on which the New Zealand land rates have been paid are being forwarded to their destination, but he has no intimation as to whether messages sent to New Zealand from New South Wales on which the authorities of the latter Colony have declined to collect such charges are being detained in the New Zealand telegraph offices, or are being sent on to the receiver. Mr Derham is particularly anxious to obtain information on this point, in order that he may adopt a course of action which will relieve the commercial community from the tax which would be placed upon it by the policy adopted by Sir J. Vogel. He accordingly telegraphed on Saturday morning to Mr Suttor, Postmaster-General of New.. South Wales, asking for particulars as to the exact position of affairs. He has since received a reply from Mr Suttor, stating that Sir J. Vogel has nob yet acknowledged the message from Sydney informing him that the New South Wales Government would not collect New Zealand terminal rates, and that therefore no fresh development of the difficulty had arisen. Mr Derham feels that some decisive action must be taken to relieve the trade of the Colony from the strain placed upon it by the conduct of Sir Julius Vogel ; and he hopes, with the co-operation of Mr Suttor, to shortly initiate measures which will do away with the present difficulty.

(united press association.) Christchurch, November 4.

In reference to the difficulty with the Cable Company, Sir Julius Vogel states that he received a telegram last night from the Postmaster-General of New South Wales, saying that they would refuse this morning to collect the terminal rates. The New South Wales Government decline to make up for the increased rates for the use of telegrams there. The New Zealand Government are not charging any increased rates to the press at present. Dunedin, November 4.

The Chamber of Commerce met to-day to consider the present cable dispute, but after a slight discussion the matter was adjourned. Some members expressed opinions that Government should put an end to the dispute, but others considered that Government should not be hampered. Christchurch, November 5.

At the annual meeting of the United Press Association, the Directors’ report for the year contained a statement upon the position of affairs with regard to cable- rates. After detailing steps which had been taken to induce a favorable issue without success, the clause concludes —“Your Directors desire to express their decided opinion that it is to the interest of the Press and the public of the Colony that the Government should agree to pay the annual contribution of £SOOO now asked toward the cable subsidy for a further period not exceeding five years.” The report was unanimously adopted-