THE SAN FRANCISCO CONTRACT IN MELBOURNE.

Evening Star, Issue 2967, 22 August 1872, Page 2

THE SAN FRANCISCO CONTRACT IN MELBOURNE.

The telegraph informed us that the Victorian Parliament by 34 votes to 15, refused to ratify the contract entered into between Messrs Vogel and Duffy. The debate took place on the 14th, and the non-ratification of the contract was moved by the Treasurer of the Colony, Mr Laughton, who, according to the Australasian, summed up the reasons against the contract in the short sentence that “its cost was altogether disproportionate to the services it could render to this Colony.” He showed that the amount of correspondence forwarded from Victoria by former Pacific services was very small. Even of the letters from Victoria to America, of 17 681 forwarded since Webb’s lino had been in operation, 10,760 went by the way of Suez, and only 6,821 through San Francisco. Putting the most favorable estimate on the matter, the Deputy Postmaster-General could oqly expect the the annual postage by this route would amount to L 2.500, a sum which the Treasurer himself believed would never be realised. This small amount, would only reduce the annual payment of the Colony to L 30.000. But th<» service by way of Suez, the great mail highway by which we communicate with the rest of the world, only costs us the net sum of L 22.000 a-year. For that amount we send 36,508 letters a-month against the 819 forwarded by Webb’s line, for which Mr Duffy proposed to pay L32.50C. This was the position of the case, and then Mr Langton asked why should the Colony pay this inordinate amount for so small a service when we get the larger service for a less sum. He ridiculed the absurd proposals embodied in the treaty by which the contracting shipowners were to “use their best endeavors to obtain from the United States Government and Legislature ” some tariff concessions in favor of Victoria and New Zealand. “Judging,” said Mr Langton, “ by the treatment the contract had received when under discussion in the American Senate, this firm did not possess a large amount of influence, and the clause appeared to him one of the most ludicrous and amusing that could have been inserted in an otherwise dry and uninteresting document.” It was upon these grounds that he asked the House to refuse its sanction to the contract.

Mr Duffy began his speech by declaring that “ he rejoiced that the time had come to discuss this subject, and asserting his confidence that he would satisfy them that this contract was one which was good for the public interests of the country, and one which was also creditable to those who undertook its management,” and then spoke as follows “He thought tho interests of the Colony had been maintained in connection with this contract ; that the late Government made q,n arrangement whiqh, jf fairly submitted to the Colony , would receive the sanction of a large majority of the people.— (“Oh.”) If fairly submitted to that House, apart from the influence of party, without the influence the Government of the day necessarily had, without the existence of the fears arising from any thwarting of the Government, the House would sanction the contract of the late Government. He believed that contract would have been sanctioned if the late Government had had an opportunity of bringing it before the House. The Colonies of New South Wales and New Zealand attached very great importance to a line with America, New South Wales had always been very jealous lest Melbourne should become the terminus of such a line. When it was announced that New Zealand and Victoria had entered into an arrangement for the present contract, he received letters from well-in-formed persons in Sydney, informing him that tho wrath and rage of the Sydney merchants, because Melbourne had got the advantage of being the terminus, were so intense that they would use the influence of friends and correspondents in this city to thwart the arrangement. If the House thought that information ill-founded, let them note a very significant fact'. A fortnight since, it became known in New South Wales that the present Victorian Government had abandoned this arrangement with New Zealand, and a motion was carried in the Assembly of that Colony (New South Wales) declaring that it was essential to establish a postal route via San Francisco, the basis of which would be an expenditure by the neighbouring colony of 1/50,600. If it was worth while for New South Wa|es to pqy L§o,Qot) in tfie first instance for this service, to which Victoria would only have been liable for L 40,000, and would practically only pay Llo,ooo—how, in that case, fcould Victoria be justified in setting aside the arrangement, an arrangement that would he so useful to their neighbours, and would be so useful to themselves ? This was not only a question of postal routes, but was one of the commercial, trading,] and industrial development of this colony. The Californian route would connect them with new markets, would open up commuuication with the most powerful branch of the race from which they had sprung'out of the mother country. He did not think either they would be quite justified iu overlooking what was due to tbe |onor and credit of the colony

by setting aside in the peremptory fashion proposed the arrangement made with New Zealand. If the House sanctioned the present motion, four contracts agreed to by Governments of this colony would have come to nothing for want of the concurrence of Parliament. This would not serve colonial interests in Europe, or even their interests intercolonially. He invited the House to consider a significant suggestion made in correspondence from New Zealand to the present Government and also to the late Government, and the point had been put more effectually in conversations he had heard. That was to say, the Government of New Zealand declared that, within the last nine years, the imports to the t colony from Victoria amounted to fifteen and a half millions in value. In one of his letter, Mr Vogel referred to letters from Melbsurne posted in New Zealand to go by the Californian route homewards, and stated that in one bundle IUO letters had been sent from here to be posted in New Zealand. If Victoria refused to take a reasonable share in the expenditure on the line New Zealand had plainly intimated that it would employ its Customhouse to recoup itself. ” The Argus has this further reference to the matter : statement having been made by Mr Grant that Mr Duffy had received a communication from the agent-general—Mr Childers—to the effect that the Imperial Government approved of the contract, and would be prepared, not only to pay all the American postage, but to grant a subsidy on account of the contract of L 20.000 per annum, LlO 000 to be paid to Victoria, and LIO.OOO to New Zealand, Mr Duffy admitted in the Assembly on the following day that he bad received a communication from Mr Childers, stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed him that the .'imperial Government proposed to take tfcat course. Mr Duffy defended Mr Childers from the charge of impropriety in communicating with him personally, because he said he did it under the belief that he was still Chief Secretary.