PACIFIC CABLE.

Waikato Times, Volume 99, Issue 16653, 19 November 1925, Page 7

PACIFIC CABLE.

CANADIAN BOMBSHELL. WITHDRAWAL FROM PARTNERSHIP CONSTERNATION ON THE BOARD. (Australian and N.Z. Cable Assn.) LONDON, Nov. 17. The Pacific Cable Roard has been thrown into a slate of consternation by the receipt of a communication from the Canadian office to the effect that the Canadian Postmaster-General, Mr Murphy, was recommending the withdrawal of Canada from partnership in the Pacific Gable project in consequence of the action of a majority of the board in connection with awarding contracts for the, duplication of the cable between Bamfleld, Fanning Island, and Fiji, providing for the expenditure of £2.2<".0,000. Mr Murphy points out that Canada's interest in the contracts, which were awarded despite her protests and in defiance of the hoard's long-established practice, exceeds £600,000. He says the decision to invite lenders was taken in the absence of the Canadian representatives. He therefore cabled Canada's willingness to withdraw from the partnership, as the original purpose for which Canada entered it had long since been accomplished. He suggested that Canada should receive her share of the surplus, otherwise more than £600,000 of her money will be spent illegally and in total disregard of her wishes. He pointed out, as apparently (he future prosperity of the cable is assured. Canada's further assistance was not required. The main purpose of the cable is to link England, Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand are commercially interested because of the facilities for business. Canada had no such commercial interest, and in the meantime demands live-eighteenths her share of the accumulated reserve. The board replied that compliance with Mr Murphy's wishes would require Ihe passage of another imperial Act. The board was not empowered to pay out of its funds, as ihe Act directs that funds are only employable for the laying of cables. The management further contends that Canada has no title to any part of the board's savings, as she paid no part of Ihe original capital, which the National Debt Commissioners of Great Britain wholly advanced. Mr Murphy, in reply, contends that Canada is entitled to a share of the assets and that the board in citing Canada's agreement in 1921 to the duplication of the cable from Honolulu to New Zealand wrongly assumes that this authorised the present expenditure. The board also wronglyassumed that a letter by one of Canada's representatives on the board bound Canada to the duplication from Bamfleld to Fiji. He maintains that it referred only to the duplication of the New Zealand to Fiji line. It is stated (hat the board is hopeful that Canada will not pursue the subject to the extent of withdrawing herself from membership. The matter will probably be discussed at the next meeting, when Canada's final word is expected.