THE PACIFIC CABLE

Hokitika Guardian, 8 February 1926, Page 3

THE PACIFIC CABLE

CANADA’S WITHDRAWAL RECOMMENDED.

[Australia & N.Z. Cable Association.] OTTAWA, February 4. Sir Charles Murphy, Canadian Post-master-General, has notified the Pacific Cable Hoard that lie will recommend the withdrawal of Canada from the partnership with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, under which tlie Pacific Cable was constructed, if the Hoard persists in the duplication of the Pacific Cable from I'iji to Canada. OTTAWA, February 5. Sir Charles Murphy’s statement is made in a letetr to the Auditor General. In November last the AuditorGeneral called attention to tlie fact that the Pacific Cable was reporting

a “regular, recurring surplus,” and the Auditor-General raised the question of ulietjir the Canadian Government was receiving its share of flic profits, as it had previously paid its share of the losses in earlier days.

In reply, Sir Charles .Murphy, in December, tailed attention to the proposal of the Pacific Cable Hoard to duplicate the cable from Fiji to ( anada. He remarked this was being done “ not only without obtaining Canada’s consent, but in defiance of the protest of iier representatives on the Hoard.” After referring to the Canadian Government’s viewpoint on the matter, Sir Charles Murphy says: ‘‘Canada contended that the Hoard had not the authority to proceed with the duplication of the Pacific Cable without Canada’s consent, and that to do so would lie a violation of the British Act of 1911.” Bather than condone such an illegality, and having regard to the record of the Hoard, he has notified the Hoard that he will recommend the withdrawal of Canada from the partnership. In addition to other sums to which Canada is entitled, a claim is also made for the repayment of her share in the reserved fund, which the Hoard proposes to spend in a manner that is considered illegal, and in an enterprise the justification for which is not apparent at present.” OTTAWA, February 5.

The Postmaster-General referred the communication to Sir William Mercer, taking the ground that the cable was largely prompted by a desire for greater Imperial unity, and not merely as a commercial undertaking and in reply to this stated: “Tn 1920 the Hoard recommended a new cable from New Zealand to Honolulu to connect on American territory with the American line to give direct communication with San Francisco. So thoroughly had the Hoard studied the ■ problem, and so little concerned with the sentimental, or Imperial, or the All Tied character of the cable in 1920. that they recommended negotiations lie undertaken to secure the concurrence of the United States Government and the Commercial Cable Company in the project of duplicating the cable between New' Zealand and Honolulu. The foregoing will enable you to weigh the value of nnv lof the Imperial or 'sentimental objections now raised by the Hoard or by any of its apologists to claim on behalf of Canada a connection with an issue for which the Hoard is solely responsible.”

pnij’-n’r*'’*' "’"ir hhik* [Australia it N.Z." Cable Association.] U.S.A. NAVY. STRENGTH BEHIND BRITAIN AND JAPAN. ** WASHINGTON, February 7. Admiral Coonlz’s report lias been published. It recommends the eonstruetion of many vessels and the modernisation of the existing equipment in view of the serious deficiencies from tlie o-5-G ratio strength involving IHe immediate construction of all airemit carriers allowed by the Arms Limitation Treaty, eight light cruisers, 12 fleet submarines and other auxiliaries, an increase in the personal by 10,000, the establishment of a fleet base at Alameda, California, and an advanced base at Hawaii. The report says the United States lacks twenty-two ten thousand ton cruisers and eighteen destroyer leaders to match England’s strength. These types lack twenty-three fleet submarines to match Japan’s. The United States is gravely deficient in airplanes whereas she should have a force able to dominate the air.

The report adds:—The navy’s greatest weakness is the lack (if adequate speed and auxiliaries. It states the radio equipment is so obsolete that it cannot he depended on.

THE VOLSTEAD ACT. WASHINGTON, February 7. The Episcopal Prohibition Referendum (cabled 3rd January) has preeipistnted one of the greatest sensations since the Volstead Law was enacted, and this, coupled with the introduction of a measure in the Senate providin'; for a special bureau of prihibition under Air Mellor, with a Commissioner for Prohibition reeeiveing ten thousand dollars salary, has brought about an angry discussions of the liquor question in Congress, Chureli circles are extremely agitated over James Empringham's statement that nineteen Episcopal Bishops are supporting the Volstead Law, and five are asking for a modification. Bishop Manning, of New York, to-day sent a cablegram answering negatively the query of the Bev. John Redmond, of Belfast, whether the Episcopal Church has begun a campaign for the modification of the prohibition law. The reports that Empringham was in Washington sent interested Congressmen scurrying to find him to obtain a further statement to support their contentions in Hopse debate, which raged all day. He was, however, not found nor has he answered the numerous queries from many dry organisations for further information regarding the Episcopal referendum. Representative Hill, a wet advocate, attempted a tour do force by introducing a measure increasing the appropriation for the coastguard fight on the rum runners. The dry’s charged him with bad faith, and defeated the proposal. It is interesting to note that United States Attorney, Air Buckmore. in charge of prohibition enforcement in New'.York, stated it would take a minimum of fifteen million dollars to enforce the Volstead. Law in New York state. AVARAf DEBATE. WASHINGTON. February 7. Air Buckner aded that the Congressional appropriation for the whole of the United States was only 10,600,000 dollars. Representaive Bovland urged the early hearing for his bill authorising four per cent alcohol beer. The House Judicial Committee ordered to be reported out the Crampton Bill putting the prohibition enforcement under the civil service. This is considered a dry victory.

wet and dry representatives thereupon began to exchange pointed personalities, prompting representative Barkely to suggest that Jack Dempsey should be invited to participate in the proceedings. Representative Connelly separated Representatives Shaffer (wet) and Upshaw (dry), who approached each other to emphasize their opposing arguments. Shaffer declared

that organised labour favoured light wines and beers.

Representative Cooper said they favoured the Volstead Act. Upshaw and Blanton attacked Empringham. stating he does not represent a million Episcopal communicants in the United States. Rev. A. J. Sabath suggested that a modification of the dry law might save young girls and hoys from debauchery. Upshaw demanded that the navy be called on to enforce prohibition. Knitson asked Does the gentlemen think hanging to good for these rum-runners.” Upshaw replied:—“l always advocated sending them to the bottom of the sea.” Representative Alurphy eliallened Snbath’s statement, saying:—“The young girl of to-dfly Y Is as good as ever she was, and of all the eontemptable arguments to try to justify changing the law that, of all, is the lowest down.”