THE PRESS AND THE TELEGRAPH.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 620, 14 June 1876, Page 3

THE PRESS AND THE TELEGRAPH.

(Continued from Friday's issue.)

In our last article on this subject we undertook to show that the opinion expressed last year by the Acting Commissioner of Telegraphs, when urged to sanction a reduction of telegraphic rates in favor of evening journals, viz, that the present Press tariff contributed very largely, if not mainly, to the loss the department suffers annually, was not in any way supported by facts. It -will be recollected that Mr Reynolds’ objection was of a twofold character: (1) That if further concessions than the Press now enjoy were granted they would involve greater loss to the department; and (2) the rrisk of the wires being clogged at the several .-stations would be increased correspondingly. And be supported his view of the case, not eo much by giving the experience of the department or by showing the effects of the existing Press tariff upon its receipts, as by quotations from a report by a Royal Commission that had inquired into the working of the electric telegraph in Great Britain, When the matter was before the House of Representatives last year he was ready with forcible quotations from that report, which was thorough-going in its condemnation of Press telegraphy j but he did not tell members from whom that report emanated, how it had been received by the interest which it more immediately affected, or whether it had been stamped with the approval of the English Cabinet. Its date shows that it must haye come almost wet from the press to be mailed in July, at which time it was not public property even in England. Mr Reynolds, to suit his purpose, treated it with the weight that should be accorded to a report by a Royal Commission that has received official confirmation, in which case it may be assumed its recommenoations or suggestions will at some period be carried out—a view of it that was taken .by nearly every member who spoke on the subject—but it was to all intents and purposes an ex parte statement b« a biassed official, which the Imperial Government have declined to act upon ;

though, of course, this latter fact could not then have been known to Mr Beynolds. This English report has such an important bearing upon the subject in hand —indeed, so far from being against, as Mr Beynolds made it out to be, it is actually a strong argument in of the claims of the evening papers—that wo think it right to sr\y a word or two about it. The commissiouers were three in number, and their chairman was a Mr Weaver, who was formerly secretary and manager of the International Telegraph Company, which, it will be recollected, owned the wires in England previous to their being purchased by the State in 1869. It is not unnatural to suppose that Mr Weaver’s conservative notions, so strongly exhibited in many of the regulations issued by the old company, should lead him to view, in a hostile spirit, the reforms initiated by Mr Scudamore, which have done so much towards popularising the telegraph in Great Britain—reforms which, to his credit, be it ever said, Sir Julius Vogel, during his presidency of the department in this Colony, has always adopted, without any hesitation, This supposition has received general credence in England, and we have seen it asserted in many newspapers—even in the London Times —that not only was Mr Weaver biassed against the postal-telegraph system but that he was able to influence his brother commissioners, and that the report was in fact Mr Weaver’s, and his alone. For instance, it was said in one paper—"An independent authority should have been called in, and Mr Weaver have been assisted by two gentlemen who would have had the courage of their own convictions on the question at issue, instead of acquiescing in all the recommendations of their chief, not because they believed them, but because of * the wide experience and practical knowledge of Mr Weaver.’ ” The English Commissioners, or rather Mr Weaver, presented an " eminently unsatisfactory ” picture of the condition of the telegraph service of Great Britain, as it was conducted a year since; and to reduce the large loss at which it was worked annually, they proposed increases both in Press and public rates—in the latter case to the tune of between 100 and 200 per cent. Bat Mr Disraeli’s Government appears to have thought that the British public would not lightly view a proposal to raise the price of telegrams to the extent suggested, and were no more disposed to entertain the idea than we should imagine Sir J. Vogel would bo to impose upon us a half-crown tar’ff again after the public enjoying the ten words a shilling rate for four years, to make op a deficiency of £12,000 a year. It is true, as Mr Beynolds pointed out, that the Commissioners reported that the Press tariff at Home—and it is only with this part of the report that we are now dealing—was a “ fruitful source of loss.” We do not think Lord John Manners is of that opinion, as our reading has not enabled us to discover that the tariff has been altered ; on the contrary, we have every reason to believe it remains what it was before Mr Weaver made his report. Besides, it has b°cn clearly shown that Press telegraphy in England is not conducted at a fruitful loss to the department, for Mr Lemon must be as well aware as ourselves of the many means the department in England has adopted to protect itself from possible loss in this branch of its business. He must needs know that in England country offices are only kept open at night for the convenience of the local newspapers on condition of a sufficient quantity of news matter being sent to pay the expenses of transmission, or of the deficiency being made up by a special payment, this payment being decreased as the quantity of Press messages is increased; that in several towns no extra payment whatever is demanded for keeping the town offices open, it being found that the news telegraphed is sufficient not only to pay the expenses, but to yield a reasonable profit in addition, and most important fact of all—that the department has again and again refused to the Exchange Telegraph Company permission to extend their wires where they were wanted exclusively for Press purposes, because such an extension " would deprive the Post office of revenue.” All of which proves, we think, the very reverse of what Mr Beynolds intended the English report should prove when he read it to the House of Eepresentativrs. There is just one other remark we have to make before we leave Mr Weaver’s report. In England no such great distinction is made between morning and evening journals as is drawn by our tariff. There the former pay one shilling for 100 words, while the latter get seventy-five words for the same money; all messages can be sent at any hour of the day, and {here is no restriction of the length of the messages. Here, if a mca?age is despatched to a second or third paper, each is charged full rate?. In England the duplicate rate has advantages which we should like to see extended to the colonies. For instance, if a message is sent from Edinburgh (say) to seven dailies in London, to the three in Manchester, the two in Plymouth, and one in Aberdeen, each of the thirteen papers would be charged the same, viz (2 l-13d each), the initial shilling being charged on the first message, and the duplicate rate of twopence upon the other twelve. We have said already that the assertion that the department in this colony was conducted at an annual loss, mainly because of the cheap rate at which it transmitted press messages, was not supported in any way. It could not be, for the facts show just the opposite. We ask was Parliament ever told, or will the general manager toll us, what are the relative proportions (in regard to cost of transmission and revenue received) of Press messages to private ones, or to what extent the wires are used by Government messages which return not one farthing to the departmsnt, but increase in number quarter by quarter ? Further, if the press business is snch a " fruitful loss,” as Mr Reynolds says it is, why does not the general manager encourage it by granting facilities for sending long messages at night at cheap rates? Indirectly the public are gainers; but the morning papers only are bauefitted by Mr Lemon’s liberality, because the evening papers are never able to share in it. It is of the onesidedness of the present arrangements that we complain. If that cannot be altered, we would advise the commissioner to act upon the suggestion of bis colleague, Major Atkinson, which met with the approval of an ex Colonial Treasurer, and to abolish all distinctions in charges. With a tariff that would be equal in its operation, the evening papers could have no cause to complain of unfair treatment, while the department would receive a substantial addition to its revenue, which Mr Reynolds avers it absolutely needs. This view of the matter should at once commend itself to the Colonial Treasurer, But as we

fear thia will not be done, we will proceed to explain what concessions the evening papers asked for last year, and to show that the granting of them would not only be equitable, but would not entail any diminution of revenue to the department. We consider the evening papers, when they approached Parliament last year and asked for a remission of telegraphic rates in their favor, were modest in the request they made. Having shown, as we think, the unfairness of a tariff that imposes upon them charges 25 per cent more than are paid by morning journals, who have unlimited use of the wires so long as their messages are handed in for transmission during stated hours of the evening, it was asked that the evening papers should either be permitted to send during any part of the day at cheap rates 500 instead of 200 words as now, or that they could do so during one hour, in the first part of the morning, say from eight to nine, up to 1000 words in ordinary times, and up to 2000 words during the sitting of Parliament, all additional messages, save news by cable, to be charged at the full Press rate. Had these concessions been granted, we do not hesitate to state that the department would have suffered no pecuniary loss ; on the contrary, have been gainers, while the blockage of the wires by Press messages—at all events, by the messages ofjthe evening papers —during the day, to the detriment of the commercial part of the business, would have been next to impossible. So desirous were they of preventing, as far as they could, any such possibility, that they pointed out means by which the labor of the department might be materially reduced, in order to ensure speedy transmission, and so leave the wires practically free for “commercial” purposes during the busy hours of the day. The proposition is not an unreasonable one, and the department should in common fairness to a large section of the Press of this colony, favorably consider it. Its practicability might be tested at once. The approaching session will, it is generally admitted, be a most important one, and naturally the public will expect the proceedings to be well reported. Their limited space and the necessity for their dealing with events at the lime of their ocourrence, compel evening papers to be largo customers of the telegraph. But however anxious we might be to give our readers tolerably full reports of the important debates in the House in the issue after they take place, the expensive telegraph tariff will not allow us to do so. Last session’s experience will illustrate our meaning.'The principal debates occurred at the evening sittings : and many times the bare outlines of them would run into messages of 1000 words, for which we had to pay £2 10s ; and then it did not happen unfrequently that they were not delivered till after we had gone to press, while our morning contemporaries would receive the same message for a trifle over ten shillings. Is not this unjustly handicapping the evening journals, and restricting their enterprise in one of its essential branches, Of course it will be many years ere there is a wire devoted exclusively to the use of the Press. This is the true remedy, and we are not sure but that it would be to the mutual advantage of the department and the Press, if one were erected, and a contribution levied upon all newspapers sufficient to psy the interest and sinking fund on the money required for its construction, the Tieea in return being allowed to use it on all occasions, night or day, save when absolutely needed for public purpose*, at rates that would pay for maintenance and the salaries of the officers actually employed upon it. This, however, is a digression. We repeat that in fairness the evening papers should receive, and at once, concessions similar to what were asked last year; If Mr Lemon is still possessed of the idea that to grant them would occasion a pecuniary loss to the department, let him adopt the English plan—make it a sine qua non' that a sufficient quantity of news matter shall be sent to pay expenses, or that the deficiency shall be made up by a special payment. From the opinions expressed by the proprietors of the journals with whom we placed ourselves in communication, when we first moved in the matter, we have no hesitation in saying that they would be willing to enter into such an arrangement. For our own parts, we fail to see the necessity for it. We have always declined to endorse the statement that the telegraph is conducted at a loss, and cannot more forcibly express our views on that point than by quoting from an English paper’s remarks upon Mr Weaver’s report : “ Our opinion is, that the telegraph system should be looked upon as a vital branch establishment of the Post Office, and that although every effort should be made, by cutting down useless and extravagant expenditure, to make it pay its own way, jet that some of the surplus revenue of the postal department should be placed at the disposal of the telegraph system, at any rate for a few years to come. It, must be remembered that the Post Office did not realise a prefit for many years after the penny postage had been introduced, but by judicious reform and careful management it ultimately became and still continues a profitable feeder to the State. Let some of the heavy expenditure of the telegraph department be cut down, and further facilities given to the public and the Press, and we have every confidence that in a very short time the telegraph will follow the example of the Post Office, and pay a fair interest on the capital laid out in the first instan e.”