CANADA ATTACKS PACIFIC CABLE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17830, 26 April 1926, Page 1

CANADA ATTACKS PACIFIC CABLE.

SIR .1. ALLEN REPLIES: “ CHANGE OF GROUND.” By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Aus- and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received April 26, 11 a.m.) LONDON. April 25. Sir James Allen, who drew up the statement to which Mr Murphy replied concerning the Pacific cable, states that apparently Mr Murphy has changed his ground of attack, which was originally strenuous objection to the use of permalloy instead of numetal in the new cable. “ Our independent investigation convinced the board of the superiority of permalloy, in addition to which it is British, while numetal is American. The first serious diversion of opinion arose on the Canadian proposal to avoid excessive expenditure by duplications via Honolulu. The board emphaticall}' disagreed on the ground that it would cease to be an All Red route. Australia and New Zealand supported the board. Then the present contract was let. If Canada continues her dissent, she has only two choices, either she must refuse a landing for the cable at Bamfield or withdraw from partnership. The former is unthinkable because even foreigners were not denied a landing. The latter would necessitate an Imperial Conference, at which Australia, New Zealand and Canada would arrange terms for the winding up of the partnership.” Mr Pacaud (Canadian representative in London) is not prepared to indicate Canada's future action, which he says is in the hands of the PostmasterGeneral, who administers the Department under authority of Order-in-Coun-cil. At present there is no reason to expect a withdrawal, which presumably would be a Cabinet matter, but even if that occurred it would not affect the service. The only change would be that Canada, instead of being a partner, would collect, land line tolls.