PACIFIC CABLE.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 April 1926, Page 1

PACIFIC CABLE.

DUPLICATION DISPUTE. [Australia & N.Z. Cable Association.* LONDON, April 23. „ Sir Charles Murphy, the Canadian Postmaster-General (who has objected to the Pacific Cable Board’s duplication policy) has sent to Air Packaud, the Canadian representative on the Pacific Cable Board, a voluminous answer to the Pacific Cable Board’s recent memorandum.

Sir Charles Alurpliy asserts that it is misleading and contrary to fact to say that Canada consented, in January 1921, to tho Fanning Island-Bamfiekl duplication. That consent- only rimplied to the laying of .a cable from New Zealand to Honolulu, for-the purposes of linking up with tho Commercial Company Cable. AVith regard to the statement as to the advisableness that the Fanning Is-laiul-Honolulu connection should lie modified owing to the prosperity of the Pacific Cable, from which a large reserve had been built up. Sir Charles Alurpliy asserts that the reserve has Ixien achieved by allowing two-thirds of the original debt to remain unpaid, and by failing to distribute the profits, which course of action was a violation of the purposes of the original act. Had the Fanning IslundHonolulu connection been made in 1920, tho United States traffic on the cable would have increased, instead oi having decreased, as it has done, through the Board’s inertia. Even when it was carrying United States traffic, the Fanning Island-Bamfield cable had idle periods daily, so thatthe claim was untenable that the Gallic would have left that cable inadequate for Empire traffic. The Pacific Board declares Sir Chas. Murphy has been so little concerned with the sentimental or Imperial considerations of an All Red Cable, that, in 1920, they recommeued negotiations' with the United States Government for a Honolulu-New Zealand-cable duplication. Then the first intimation „f this idea being dropped was Australia’s stipulation Tor the avoidance of Honolulu in favour of a British Columbia landing. Therefore the abandonment of the Honolulu line proposal was not based on the Pacino Board’s consideration lor imperial policy. . Tho Canadian Postmaster-General points out that when the present duplication is completed, it will have 191) letters per minute greater speed than t'lio section south of Fiji. LONDON, April 24.

In his reply to the Pacific Cable Board memorandum, Kir Charles Murphy (Canadian Postmaster-General), refers to the lino laid in 1923,' regarding which, lie says that Mr Coghlan recommended last year its replacement by a speedier Permalloy cable. Sir Charles Alurpliy asserts that the Board is responsible for any delay there has been in consulting Canada, who learned from tho Board Chairman that it, was not intended to consult any of the Gov. ernments before awarding the contracts. Sir Charles Alurpliy quotes Air Packaud as reporting as follows: ‘As far as 1 am personally concerned and I believe Air Campbell Stuart is of the' same mind—we gave no consent to the acceptance of any tenders lor duplication, but wo both pleaded for an extension of time.”

Sir Chas. Alurpliy declares that Sir ■J. Cook and the Engineer, Air Heurtlev. in April, 1925, described the prices as too high. Even when reductions were made. Air Henrtley, on the 24th of April of last year, was ol the same opinion, but, despite both the Canadian representatives’ protests, the Board decided to award contracts. This was five months after the Canadian representatives’ protest. Kueli a departure from the plan for the New ZealandHonolulu line should have been submitted to the partner Governments. There -is no good in arguing that it only is a matter of detail when it represents six times the expenditure to which Canada’s consent was asked m 19J2-. 'I He Board’s action, he says, was illegal and indefensible, and the illegality was on a par with the illegal diversion of funds, in which connect ion'the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was now proposing legislation to relieve them of the onus ot their illegal conduct. This legislation, coupled with Coghlan’s scathing indictment of boards, and making appointments for family and personal reasons emphasised the need for a complete overhaul of the Board and of its various ramifications.