9

F.—3

principally owing to the fact of the temporary absence from London of several of the influential gentlemen who had signed the articles of association of the company, so that we have every reason to trust that they will not be of long duration. We have, &c, F. C. Eowan, Audley Coote (per F. C. E.). P.S.—This morning's Press telegrams would indicate a postponement on the part of the Imperial Government of the question of subsidising the Pacific cable. We, nevertheless, think it advisable to send on the memorandum as written, feeling convinced that the assent of the Imperial Government is only delayed, and that Mr. Pender's published statements should not be allowed to pass without comment.—F. C. E. and A. C. (per F. C. E.), 20th December, 1886. The Hon. the Postmaster-General, New Zealand.

HOSTILE CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSED PACIFIC CABLE. Memokandum submitted for the consideration of the Hon. the Postmasteb-Genebal of New Zealand. The criticisms alluded to spring mainly, if not wholly, from one source—namely, from Mr. John Pender, who represents existing interests. It is hardly to be wondered at that the company holding the present monopoly of conducting and charging for cable communication between Australia, Great Britain, Europe, and America should bo very much disturbed at the idea of a rival company springing up who can offer low rates as an inducement to the commercial public, while in return for the support asked for from Great Britain and her colonies they offer the advantages of a route of great political importance, as being more secure from foreign interruption in case of war than any existing one, because it would be controlled practically from end to end by the sea and land forces ■of the Empire. It is not then to be wondered at that the able and astute chairman of the existing company should have, on more than one occasion, attempted to traverse the pretensions and aspirations of the promoters of the Pacific Cable Company now forming by setting forth unfavourable views concerning the cost and prospects of any such Pacific cable, which views he desires to see accepted as correct by the Imperial and Colonial Governments as well as by the public at large. In a Queensland parliamentary paper giving correspondence with the Eastern and Eastern Extension Telegraph Companies respecting the reduction of rates on public messages we find a statement dated the 27th January, 1886, which was submitted by Mr. Pender to the Agent-General for Queensland in London, and by this latter forwarded to his Government, which statement contains what purports to be Mr. Pender's estimate of the cost and working of a cable from Brisbane to San Francisco, touching at New Caledonia, Fiji, and Honolulu. Again, in a report published in the " Electrician" of the 29th October, 1886, of the last ordinary general meeting of the Eastern Extension, Australasia, and China Telegraph Company, we find Mr. Pender saying that he considers the laying of a cable in opposition to his own one outside the bounds of possibility, on the score of cost, and he quotes a series of figures which are so led up to, and so set forth as, apparently, to justify his statement. He says that he makes his statement " advisedly," and that he wishes it to go before the public by the Press taking full notice of it. Now, the figures contained in his statement submitted to the Queensland Government, as well as those contained in that laid before his shareholders, are decidedly adverse to the prospects of a Pacific cable, and they might, if allowed to pass unchallenged, be accepted as correct by the commercial and general public, and possibly by Governments. It is for this reason that we consider it advisable to lay before you, on behalf of the gentlemen who have signed the articles of association of the Pacific Cable Company lately registered in London, a few comments on Mr. Pender's estimates which will, we think, prove that some of his figures are under and others over estimated, but always adversely to his rivals, while he altogether omits to touch on the very important international and political considerations which combine with the prospects of a reduced tariff to render such alternative and quite distinct cable as is proposed a boon to be greatly desired. In his estimate submitted last January to the Queensland Government he takes the traffic for the year ending September, 1885, as amounting to 556,660 words, and assuming a 7s. 6d. tariff he admits a probable increase of 20 per cent.; but takes two-thirds of the increased traffic to be 400,000 words, whereas it should be almost 450,000. Again, from the 7s. 6d. he dedacts 2s. as the cost of transmission from San Francisco to England, whereas we are certain of being able to transmit messages from Vancouver to England for Bid. •or 9d. In the estimate of receipts for the first year then we should hay of 400,000 words, at ss. 6d., giving £110,000 —450,000 words, at ss. 9d., giving £151,785; small subsidies, as allowed by Mr. Pender, £20,000 ; and we get £171,785, instead of £130,000; or a difference of over £40,000 in our favour. Mr. Pender omits altogether, apparently, to calculate on any further increase ; but it would be unfair to shut one's eyes to the progressive nature of the cable business even under the high tariff rates which have hitherto ruled. This increase which, for the first ten years of telegraphic communication between England and Australia'— i.e., to the end of 1883, amounted to over 13 per cent, per annum, continued at the same or even a better rate to the end of 1884, while the tariff was still at 10s. Bd. from Melbourne. Consequently there is every right to assume that were the tariff reduced to even 7s. 6d. the progressive increase would amount to at least probably 15 per cent, per annum. The foregoing should suffice to show that Mr. Pender's method of getting up his figures is at least open to criticism. Take, again his estimate of expenses in the same statement submitted to the Queensland '■Government. We have excellent authority for saying that he largely over estimates the expenses 2—F. 3.