PACIFIC CABLE BOARD

Otago Witness, Issue 3763, 27 April 1926, Page 33

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD

THE CANADIAN DISPUTE. LONDON, April 23. Mr C. Murphy, the Canadian Post-master-General, has sent to Mr L. Pacaud, the Canadian representative, a voluminous answer to the Pacific Cable Board’s memorandum. Mr Murphy asserts that it is misleading and contrary to fact to say that Canada consented in January 1921 to the Fanning islanJ Bamfield du[plication. That consent applied to the laying of the cable from New Zealand to Honolulu for the pur poses of linking up with the Commercial Company s cable. With regard to the statement as to the advisableness that the Fanning Island-Honolulu connection should be modified owing to the prosperity of the Pacific cable, from which a large reserve had been built up, Mr AJurph’ asserts that the reserve was achieved by allowing two thirds of the original debt to remain unpaid and failing to distribute the profits, which was a violation of the purposes of the »original Act. Had the Fanning IslandHonolulu connection been made i*. 1920 the United States traffic would have increase instead of decreased as it had done through the board’s inertia. Even when carrying the United States traffic the Fanning Island-Bamfield cable had idle daily periods, so the claim was untenable that the traffic would have left the cable inadequate for Empire traffic. The board was so little concerned with the AII-Red cable that in 1920 it recommended negotiations with the United Mates Government for the Honolulu-New Zealand duplication The first intimation of this idea was Australia’s stipulation for the avoidance of Honolulu in favour of a tiritish Columbia landing, and therefore the abandonment was not based on the board’s consideration for Imperial polieyMr Murphy points out that when the present duplication is completed it will have 190 letters a minute greater speed than the section south of Fiji. Although this was laid in i 923, Sir Timothy Coghlan (the Australian representative) recommended last year its replacement by the speedier permalloy cable. Mr Murphy asserts that the Board is responsible for any delay inocnsulting Canada, who learned from the chairman that it was not intended to consult any of the govern ments before awarding the contracts. Mr Murphy quotes Mr Pacaud as reporting: “So far as I am personally concerned, and I believe Mr Campbell Stuart is of the same mind, we gave no consent to the acceptance of tenders for the duplication, but both pleaded for an extension of ti— Mr Murphy declares that Sir Joseph Cook and the engineer, Mr Heurtley, in April, 1925, described the prices as too high, even when reductions had beer, made. Mr Heurtley on April 24 last year was of the same opinion, but despite both the Canadian representatives’ protests,' the board decided to award the contracts. This was five months after the Canadian representsti-ves’ protest. Such a departure from the plan for the New Zealand Honolulu line should have been submitted to the partner governments There was no good arguing that it was only a matter of detail when it represented six times the' expenditure to which the Canadian consent was asked in 1922. The board’s action was illegal and indefensible, and the illegality was on par with the illegal diversion of the funds, tn which connection the Secretary of State h>r Duminion Affairs was now proposing legislation to relieve them of the onus of their illegal conduct. This legislation, coupled with Sir Timothy Coghlan’s scathing indictment of the board’s methods and the making of appointments for family and personal reason? emphasised the need for a complete overhaul of the board and its various ramifications.

In February last Mr Murphy notified the Pacific Cable Board that he would recommend the withdrawal of Canada from the partnership with the United Kingdom, Australia, end New Zealand, under which the Pacific Cable was const ructedj if the board persisted in the duplication of the Pacific cable from Fiji to Canada After referring to the Canadian Governments viewpoint in the matter Mr Murphy said: “Canada contended that the board had not authority to proceed with the duplication of the Pacific cable without her consent, and that to do so would be 4 violation of the British Act of 1911. Rather than condone such an illegality and having regard to the record of the board I notified the board that I would recommend the withdrawal of Canada from the partner ship. In addition to other sums to which Canada is entitled, a claim will also be made for the payment of her share in the reserve fund, which the board proposes to spend in a manner considered illegal and in an enterprise the justification for which is not appurent at present.’’