PRESS TELEGRAMS.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue XXVI, 1 August 1871, Page 3

PRESS TELEGRAMS.

TO THE EDITOR OF TIIE INDEPENDENT. g IBj — The fact that the accompanying letter cannot fail to be of general interest to the entire press of the colonj, and that it contains matter which is of somo public importance, must be my apology for asking you to break through tho usual newspaper rule of not publishing any letter intended also for publication in a contemporary journal. — I am, &c, 0. O. MONTKOSE. Grevillo's Telegram Company (Router's Agent?), June 29, 1871. To the Editor of the " Otago Daily Times." (Per favor of the Wellington Independent.) gj Pj As you have thought proper, in the " Otago Daily Times," of June 20, to publish a leading article attacking Greville's Teleßi-nm Company, I trust you will not deny me the right which, by journalastic courtesy you ought not to refuse me, of replying to that article. Absence from the colony for some time after the article appeared, and serious illness since, have prevented my replying until now. I do not deny the undoubted right of any journal subscribing to Greville's Telegram Company to fairly criticise its organisation and management, but I do strongly protest against ihc right of any journal to impute unworthy motives and to use misrepresentations and mis-statements in its criticism, and I hope to prove in this letter that the writer of the article has been guilty of both. When the article in question was first, brought under my notice, I read it with mingled surprise a>:d pain— surprise that an editor possessing the experience aud knowledge which tho editor of the " Otago Daily Tiini*j\ miiat be assumed to posses?, should adinifc^to its -columns an artido so libellous in its character— aud pain that a journal of the standing and influence of (lie "Otago Daily Tunes" should havo its leading columns so grossly, misused. I may inform you that I deemed ii my duty to submit the article for legal opinion, and that two of the most able lawyers in A uckland have pronounced it, grossly libellous, and, as such, containing matter which would justify an action in law against you. The article and opinions thereon 1 have forwarded to the he»d office in Sydney, but pending instructions I have endeavored in this letter to counteract the very serious damage which the article cannot fail to inflict on our reputation and business. Besides tho indiscriminate opposition to tho present Government, wlu'cb has characterised the "Daily Times," and the unscrupulousness with which innocent parties are often dragged in as instruments of attack, there was another motive for this article which is not difficult, to detect. A writer for the " Otago Daily Times," and the Dunedin co> respondent of the Melbourne "Argus," who lias taken care to give the "Argus" such an account of the telegram libel case, and other matters, as would produce a certain much desired effect, lias, if I mistake nob (and I, too, know something of what transpires behind the literary scenes in Melbourne) received a brief on behalf of the myth digniOed by tho highsounding title of " The Australian Associated Press, " and ho is merely opening his case, making use of the " Times" for tho purpose. I am not the advocate of the present Ministry ; ray business is not with politics, and, therefore, in this letter I shall not deal with many mis-statements in the article which I might easily disprove. In the beginning of tho article the writor endeavors to show that the collapse of tho Press Association was owing to obstructions placed in its way by the Government. This I shall disprove. With regard to myself, he is pleased to observe that at tho time I organised the New Zealand branch cf Grevillo's Telegram Company in opposition to the Press Association, I was employed on the staff of the "Southern Cioss," of which journal a member of the Ministry, the Hon. Mr Yogel, is the reputed proprietor. The inferences which the writer of tho article wishes your readers to draw are, of course, these : that M/ Yogel improperly used his influence as a Minister to assist Greyille's Telegram Company, and that I, as the employee of Mr Yogel, allowed myself to be a mere instrument in his hands in establishing the organisation in New Zealand. The writer, Sir, probably is of such a turn of mind as to be unable to understand that between employer and employee there can exist an honorable distinction between the proper duties of the employee as such, and piivate undertakings and duties which may devolve on him without injury to the interests of his employer. The point may be too delicate for that writei-'s perception. I may, however, tell you that during my connexion with the " Southern Cross," and while I was engaged in establishing the New Zealand branch of Greville's Telegram Company, Mr Yogel never in any way interfered with my action, I never made any suggestion, never to my knowledge in nny.'way assisted me ; never, in fact, interested himself in the matter at all, except upon one occasion, when he o fibred me an incease of salary if I would altogether abandon my connexion with Greville'a Telegram Company. The article also says " that gentleman (meaning myself) was, and is now, we believe, employed on the staff of the " Southern Cross." The fact is, when you published that sentence I had not been connected with the stuff of the "Southern Cross" for a period of three months, and am not now connected with it. The article assert 6 that tho " newspapers subscribing to the Press Association were, as a rule, unfavorable to (he Government, while those receiving Grerillo and Co's telegrams supported them." The first part of the sentence would be tiue if the " Nelson Colonist," the " Lyttleton Times," the "Hawke's Bay Herald," &c, all subscribers to the Press Association, avo included in the list of opposition journals ; and the second part would also be true if the " Ilawke's Bay Times," and the "Nelson Examiner" could by any stretch of imagination be called supporters of the present, governti-.cnt. Our business was not established for political purposes ; it was based on the broad j>rineiples that have always governed Router's org:i- ! nisation, and to which Greville's Telegram Company has also adhered. "We sorve all, favor none," is our motto. We were, therefore, glad to welcome journals of all shades of opinion amongst our subscriber?. The article goes on to say "the rival institutions ran together for some months when tho Press Association, carrying the additional I weight of government influence against it, gave up the unequal contest." You, Sir, ought to know how grossly false this statement is. Tho collapse of the Prees Association was caused by ignorance in its organisation of the true principles of success in such institutions, " by mismanagement, by its exclusive character, by the gross political bias in its telegrams, by the exorbitant demands it made upon its subscribers, by the pressure of competition, by the gradual defection of subscribers, and ultimately (when the Association had dwindled down to three or four journals) the directors of tho Otago " Daily Times" accepted certain offers made by us, and agreed to transfer the business to Greville and Co. So far from tho Press AsBociation having the weight of Government influence against it, I can prove that it, reGpjgyedt^least one important concession from sUi c Government which was not. granted to us, and' cC tfhich I was quite ignorant until recently. Almost in tho very first month of its existence the Press Association began to lose ground, and its subscribers commenced to transfer themselves to us. 1 received several letters from journals connectod with the Association, intimating their intention of detaching themselves from it at. the first opportunity, and some of them actually chose to forfeit the large subscription they had paid to the Association, before the period for which they hud subscribed had half expired, and to become eubscribers to Greville'a Telegram Company. Long before the Association whb wound up, indeed for two months prior to that event, negotiations were pending between

the head office of Greville and Co., Sydney, and your directors, which negotiations, as I have stated above, ultimately led to the dissolution of the Press Association. If you deny this, Sir, I shall publish the entire correepondence. The article goes on to say that after the Press Association had ceased to exist, and when I was completing arrangements for supplying tho entire press of the ! colony with telegrams, every facility was afforded by the Government during his tour, even to tho extent, we are led to understand, of placing the telegraph wires to all parts of the colony at his disposal frco of charge." Well, Sir, tlio latter privilege, granted to me in special instances, comprises all the facilities which the Government extended to me, but from the quotation which I have given, one would think that you desired your readers to believe that tho Government had almost maintained me during my tour. When I had brought the negotiations with the Association to a successful conclusion, I telegraphed to the Government at Wellington that I had hopes of combining the whole press of the colony in a general system, and I pointed j out that if I succeeded in inducing the journals I to adopt a uniform English and Australian telegrams tho telegraph wires would no longer bo clogged with various messages to the obstruction of the public business ; and that, therefore, Government ought to make a reduction in the tar ill' for press telegrams. I also pointed out that prompt action was necessary in order to get the various journals to agree, and as I was not prepared to incur the large expense which telegraphing would involve, I requested the free use of tho wires for a few days. Government recognised tho justice of my first repre sentation, promised a liberal reduction in the press rates, and granted me the use of tho wires for the special purpose of arranging with the new-papers. By these liberal and enlightened concessions I was enabled, in the course of a few days, to successfully carry out my plans, and the wisdom of the Government action has been fully proved by the result. Not, only have the public been gainers by a large increase in press telegraphy, but the receipts of the Telegraph Department from this source have also largely increased since the general system has been in operation. You are, therefore right, Sir, in presuming that " Government were actuated by a laudable desire to benefit the public by enabling the press to obtain telegraphic news in tho cheapest possible manner." But the article goes on to draw this conclusion — " To all intents and purposes, the firm of Greville and Company in New Zealand is a Government institution, and there is no r?ason, because it is so, why ib should not fuithfully and eiliciently perform the work which it has undertaken." This is a very good specimen of the art of breaking one's head, and then offering him a plaster for the wound. This is in fact a sentence cunningly worded, with the object of producing a particular effect injurious to us, but it is, fortunately, so stupidly illogical as to carry its own refutation on the face of it. " Greville &Co is a Government institution." Why ? Because on a certain occasion Government, " out of a laudable desire to benefit the public," grunted some facilities to mo in making my arrangements with the press. " Any institution that is in any way assisted by Gov< rmnent in its establishment (out of a laudable desire to benefit the public) is a Government institutioM. Greville'a Telegram Company was so assisted by the Government in its establishment, therefore Greville's Telegram Company in New Zealand is a Government institution." This is your logic, not mino. Of course, we are right in assuming that all mechanics' institutes, all friendly societies, all public companies; in fuct, almost every institution in the colony that is not actually opposed by Government, is a Government institution : and, therefore, the " Otago Daily Times" Company (Limited) is clearly a " Government institution." Sir, Greville's Telegram Company was a recognised institution in the Australian colonies years before the " Otago Daily Times" was projected, and Greville's Telegram Company in New Zealand is a branch of that longestablished firm, a branch started as a bona fide business. The article proceeds to charge our agents with coloring telegrams for political purposes. The " Otago Daily Times" should be the last to make such a charge. I might save myself the trouble of replying to this portion of the article, that having been already most effectually done by the editor of the '• West Coast Times." I may, however, repeat what he has told you, that tho first amongst our instructions to agents is to " carefully abstain from importing political bias or coloring into telegrams, sending only mere items of news ;" and I challenge you to prove your assertions. The article further says it was highly desirable that any chance of offending Ministerial journals " by leaving the preparation of interprovincial telegrams m the hands of persons on the staff of Ministerial journals should be avoided." Here, again, the writer's moral perception seems at fault. Ho appears to be unable to conceive how a gentleman employed on the staff of "Government newspapers" (I presume he means newspapers which support the policy of the Government) can be aught else than a mere slave to his employers. The writer, perhaps, cannot realise the fact that the employee may honorably and faithfully perform his duties on the staff of the journal with which he is connected, and at the sametime act as telegraphic agent for a company, without dishonestly misusing his position us such, for selfish purposes. I trust most sincerely that the estimation of tho character of journalists contained in your article is not based upon what i 3 expected of the staff of the " Otago Daily Times." [ The article next attacks the scheme which I initiated for supplying the press of tho colony with telegrams of parliamentary news during the session. After a number of objections to the scheme (some of which I agrco with) the writer goes on to say, " Tho really objectionable feature, however, which presents itself is the want of guarantee thar the telegraphic summaries will be prepared by impartial persons. Will any one venture to say, recalling recent occurrences, that it wjuild be at all an improbable tiling if these summaries were revised, if not entirely prepared, by members of the present Ministry. What move congenial occupation would be relegated to Mr Fox, and how pleasantly would he chuckle while manipulating the telegrams." Still imputing base and unworthy motives! Truly, Sir, the ingenuity and the vividness of the writer's imagination in depicting mean, dishonorable, and contemptible conduct in others is highly suggestive of the ardour with which he must havo pursued such congenial studies, and the distinction with which he must huvo graduated in tho school of deceit and misrepresentation. This is perhaps the basest insinuation in the whole letter. It would be doing Mr Fox an in justice Lo reply to it.. His bitterest opponent, would never dream of making such base insinuations againet him, and I believe that no journal in the colony but fho "Daily Times" would give expression to them. Never to my knowledge has any tclegr.un of ours been revised by or submitted to any Minister, and I challenge you to prove a single instance. You congratulate your readers that- they will not bo supplied with parliamentary telegrams j under the general scheme, but thnt you will make independent arrangements. If your readers understood tho real motives for making these independent arrangements they would find little reason for congratulation. Under the guise of pretended anxiety to prevent coloring of telegrams you attempt to conceal something very different. Your real objection to the system I propose for supplying parliamentary telegrams is not fear of them being impartially prepared, but your determination to receive only such telegrams as will fall in with your own prejudices and foregone conclusions. Uie hollowness of the objection to receive parliamentary telegrams from Greville's Agency is seen by tho fact that tho very person whom you propose to employ as your special agent during the session, and on whoso impartiality you roly as something beyond the

power of Greville and Co. to secure, has been actually select rd by me for the special work of prepaiing j-ai !iunentary telegrams for our subscribers. I lii-vo too much confidence in him to sii|>po.-e that he would so grossly ignore his instructions aud the spirit of the regulations which govern tho business of all Router's agencies throughout the world, as to compile anything but impartial telegrams ; but if there were anything to fear, it could certainly not be in the direction of misleading a journal of which he has been so long an able and faithful correspondent. Instead of endeavoring to injure Grevillo's Telegram Company, I think you ought to aid it by every reasonable means. Besides the fact that you rcceivo all our telegrams, except from Auckland, where you retain your own agent, I may tell you that we hare hitherto carried on business at a very heavy outlay, and that it will be v very long time before wo can recoup it. In conclusion, I may add that with the fate of tho Press Association before my eyes, and with the clear and peremptory instruc tious delivered to mo by the head officer at Sydney, it is monstrous io suppose that I would ever permit anything approaching to political bias or coloring in our telegrams. — I am, &c , Chas. O. Montrose, New Zealand Manager Greville's Telegram Co.