PACIFIC CABLE CONTROVERSY.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14972, 20 May 1914, Page 5

PACIFIC CABLE CONTROVERSY.

MR MACKENZIE'S MOTION,

A PHALANX OF OBSTRUCTION

UTBOII OUK OWX CORREtjrOVDWT).

LONDON, April 10

The controversy in tbo Pacific Cablo Board over the motion of Mr Mackenzie to do bare iusiico to New Zealand in tho matter of cable rates has advanced another stage, without any abatement of the obstinate refusal of the British official members to recognise the equity of the case. The attitude taken up by Sir Henry Primrose is being adopted by his successor,-' Sir Henry 13. Smith, and by the other nominees of the British Post Office. New Zealand need not feel any peculiar soreness regarding this treatment by Britain. At this vory moment Canada is being treated in tho'samo bureaucratic manner over a very similar incident.

Some years ago Canada, from theseImperial motives which pervade many Dominions, but are absolutely unknown to officials here, made a concession to British magazine publishers with tho object of flooding Canada with British rather than American literature. It meant a considerable loss of revenuo to Canada, but this was accepted—as in Now Zealand's case over tho Pacific cable—in the interests of the Ernpiro at. large. For years past British magazines have extended their circulation in Canada to an amazing extent, to tho mutual good of tho British publishers and tho British connexion. Now tho agreement is expiring and Canada asks as a matter of equity that the British Post Office' should contribute its 6haro of the loss of revpnuo to keep the arrangement in force. Tho adamant refusal which this request lias met ought to bo some solace for those in New Zealand who may resent tho unfriendly and unreasonable hostility of tho British nominees on the Pacific Cable Board. THE DEBATE RESOIED. At Tuesday's meeting of tho Pacific Cablo Board Sir Matthew Nathan brought forwavd his motion to rescind the resolution already come to to.reduce tho cable rates to New Zealand to tho extent of tho 4d per word which New Zealand now presents to the general revenuo account of the cable. _ Sir Matthew pleaded tho traditional official reason that "tho reduction would disturb tho nuances of tlu> Board. , ' Tho now chairman supported tho roscinding motion for the same general reason."viz., that i*- would mean a loss of .£'9ooo a B year, and ho did not anticipate aq adequate increase of business. Reductions in tho NewZealand rates would cause inequalities and a demand for tho lowering of tho Australian rates. Ho quoted ' Now Zealand's letter io the effect that ">ew Zealand would demur to becoming a pnrty to a rearrangement adjusting tho difference between herself and Australia, but probably to Canada and the United Kingdom." NEW ZEALAND'S CASE. Mr Mackenzie said New Zealand had from the first objected to being charged 2s Id for the cable's portion of tho transmission, when Australia paid only Is 9d. She- bad shown great loyalty to tho whole scheme by waiving all charges on through traffic to Australia and by relieving tho Board ot all responsibility in the Dominion, where the Government acted as its agent. All messages in New Zealand which were not routed wore sent by .Pacific This, gave'the Pacific a preponderating share of New Zealand traffic; and it also, got now about two-tb. v .> of the traffic between Australia and New These considerations ought to nave eomo influence in regard to.'.New Zealand's demand, for a reduced.**to. A£ Mackenzie then .narrated the whole history of the movement for an adjustment. From 1902 to. .1804 New Zealand several times protested and threatened to raise her terminal charge to tho same as Australia. After somo demur by Australia it'was agreed to hold a conference in August 1904. but it was afterwards postponed. Finally ■ it, "was held early in 1905. and the report, published in* August, showed that a niaipritv of tho Conference were of opinion tlkt tho od charged by Australia was excessive. In June, 1912, the New Zealand Government instructed too Rich. Commissioner to bring the que*tion up again. That letter wns sent while Mr Mackenzie was Premier. There were several discussions late m that year, and eventually it was decidod Olr Coghlan. for Australia, objecting that Now Zealand's claim should bcTbrought before all the Governments concerned. In September, 1913. the Commonwealth decided that ifc -buld not lower its terminal charge it would bo prepared to consider reducing ii. if there was a goneral reduction ot cable rates. THE CONTENTIOUS RESOLUTION. Then came tho New Zealand Government's letter, which Mr Mackenzie brought up at ;i meeting on February 10th. It. was cousidoro.t " and decided that the Secretary of State be informed that, in view of'the replies received from the Governments oi tho Commonwealth ot i Australia and oi tho Dominion of New < Zealand, tho Board purpose to tako action iv this matter themselves on tho basis of a reduction of the New Zealand rate fiom April Ist." Sir Matthew Nathan thereupon gave notice to move at next meeting to rescind this resolution. Continuing his speech, Mr MackenI zie said that was evidently the official • attitude. He read a cablegram he had I received, from the,' New Zealand Government : "Your action securing motion strongly approved. Dominion urges prompt ratification. Strongly opposed rescinding." He quoted,'also, the views of the Postmaster-General (Hon. P.. Heafcon Rhodes), the Secretary of the New Zealand Post Office, and Sir Joseph Ward, who had been very # prominent in ijoit'il reform. Hβ also quoted New Zealand newspapers on ihe subject. As for the loss of revenue, he pointed out that every reduction had been followed l>y increases of traffic ranging from Btf to 7 per wnt. The revenue was £11.279 when the rate was 10s -2d peV word; and it was £57,118 when'the rnte wys 3s. Thfi cable had a capacity of 7,0C0.€00 words 'pel? day, -but was only taking 2,000,000; that is, it worked at two-fifths of its capacity. Would any business firm allow valuablo machinery to lie idle for five-sevenths of ite time? The Board was in a strong financial position. Tho cable had cost, £2.000.u00. and there was a sinking fund of £60,000, which now amounted to £400.000. Other funds invested brought this up to £529,000. The contributions which the different. Governments had to make to th,e deficit were yearly decreasing. From every point of view they ought to move towards .-reducing tho rates. At present only commercial men could make use of the cable. Ho felt great concern tit' the attitude taken up by the new chairman, and felt sure Now Zealand would consider it was being unfairly treated. It was not improiv, able that her attitude m.tfce future would be less sympathetic than it had bean in the past. He suggested that a committeo should be set ut> to consider , the whole question of reductions. This suggestion was agreed to, so that in tho meantime th.2 New Zealand rate will remain at the old figure, but the whole question of rates will be re-T-i«WRcI.