New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4947, 30 January 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1877.

The Lyttelton Times -of Wednesday has an article upon the duplication of the telegraph cable. The writer is ploddingly heavy in an attempt—which is meant to be witty—to prove that the Hon. G. McLean is fit for. nothing officially ; and:that;his only merit as a.member of the SydrieyJCoriference is, that he will realise that he-is ignorant of the question to be discussed, and will therefore not attempt to' do anything,in'the matter. 1 .'Mr. McLean has : been so successful in smoothing old provincial difficulties in Otago,and in not seeing difficulties where others, might have found; them, abundant,- that the editor of the Lyttelton limes, is bound, not to /admire Mr. McLean at and the editor's wit is not likely to annoy Mr.i'McLEAN or to cause! laughter at his expense,. But the 'Lyttelton Times also strives to appear wiße; arid its editor gives a sketch of past proceedings. respecting cable communication, in order to justify .the very, simple and..proper declaration that " the whole question requires careful consideratioaby the. Legislature." ! I That sketch is, however, altogether misleading ; and its chief use is tp serve as a peg for smart writingaboutSir J. JVogel. The Times holds that it would bav;e;been better had such an arrangement as was provisionally made in Sydney in 1873, between New South Wales,'." Queensland, and New Zealand, been carried put, and a duplication of the cable from Australia to a point in India been secured, as well as the cable from New Zealand to Australia. The arrangementthat was effected was a singularly cheap one, and therefore the 'rimes condemns it. It has worked admirably so far, and this the editor does not attempt to deny. •' If the scheme'of 1873 could have been matured in 1875, it might have been better for the colonies, thompfh it would have been a very costly one to all. But the scheme could not be matured ; nor could anything like it have

been got at anything like an equal cost. The papers presented to Parliament last session (F. 4) show the following facts : Messrs. Siemens Brothers (on whose behalf Mr. Audlby Coote signed the provisional agreement in Sydney) wrote to the Agents of the three Governments on the 25th February, 1875, that the resolutions passed by the several Legislatures confirming that agreement, do not offer enough encouragement to capitalists to subscribe'funds towards the undertaking'; and even the further assistance which the Indo-European lelegraph" Company has. "kindly consented to; place at bur'disposal, although imposing considerable sacrifices upon themselves,cannot do much to improve the financial prospecMV <'o* the' company materially. Therefore, Messrs. Siemens asked for a . modification of -the agreement. One of those modifications referred to the points at which the'cable from Normanton to ! Singapore should touch, and in March a letter was written by Mr. Vogeil, and Sir D CoorEß to Mr. Daintree, the Agent ifor Queensland, urging him to consentto ithe cable touching "at Timor and Macassar, instead: of Java." Mr Daintree •declined to consent without specific authority from* his Government -,- and on March 24th he sent to the other Agents telegram from the Qolonial Secretary, Brisbane, stating, " Government insist on 'separate line via Macassar, otherwise.contractnot to be entered into." It need nof.be discussed whether, if Queensland ■had consented to this modification, the 'agreement would have been carried out: probably it would not. " Bu't clearly Queensland would riot yield upon a point on which Mr. Vogel and Sir Daniel CooPERi guided by the opinion of. Mr. IFleeminu Jenkins, their scientific ad!viser, afchqaght it right to y,ield ; . ■ The points upon which the Agents and Messrs. Siemens differed were of large importance. Amongst them were these :—The three Governments had agreed- to- guarantee for thirty-five years five per cent, upon £1 000 000. Messrs. Siemens urged that at the 1ea5t.41,300,000 would bo required. The aoreenient provided that receipts in excess° of £12,000 a year should go in reduction of the guarantee:; what Messrs. Siemens and those who acted with chem wanted was stated in a letter of April Bth, 1875, tobe, that the company" should be allowed.to earn.£Bo,ooo,a year to cover the working expenses,"- &c,-before " any. receipt of the company-should be-taken in. reduction of the £50,000 vper annum intended to be, guaranteed by. the Colonial Governments." This,-iof course, if consented to', would: have been equivalent to an enormous increase of the guarantee provided for by the Sydney agreement. The editor "of the Lytteltnn Times can, with very little trouble, ascertain whether this general statement of facts is an accurate one. He colnnot take that little trouble without learning that there were important alterations other than those we have indicated which-.\vere required by Messrs. Siemens Brothers. He cannot fail to see, if he will read the papers, that 1 all the leading, statements he has put forward 1 as'reasons against the arrangement -which- was made, are no reasons, but simply unfounded and unjust ; statements., The Lyttelton Times sa yg : _« The lowness-bf the offer niade by the Eastern Extension Company, no doubt with a view .to monopoly '. and ,to other nltimate profitable transactions, as now proposed in .reference to a second European cable, tempted Sir J. Vooel and Sir Daniel Roofer ; but the representative of Queensland declined to have anything to do with such an arrangement. And in the comprehensive view of a statesman he was right." In fact, the printed papers do not show that Mr. Daintree took any part in the matter, after March 24th, 1875, when he communicated to "the other Agents the telegram from his Government respecting Macassar; and Sir Julius Vogel, in his report to, the New Zealand Government, says : "Mr. Daintree, as representing Queensland, ceased to be connected with the matter after the negotiations with Messrs. Siemens Brothers had fallen through.!' This was, indeed, inevitable. When the effort to obtain a duplicate cable from Australia to India, as well as one from New Zealand to Australia, had failed, only the New Zealand Agent had powers to go further. The 9th section of the .Telegraph Cables Subsidy Agreement Ratification- Act, 1873, referred solely toHhe latter cable. It was out of question, that that cable should be taken< to anyVpoint on the Queensland coast. The; arrangement for it fell naturally to be made between New South Wales and New Zealand; and Sir Daniel Cooper, by telegraph, asked for and obtained the necessary powers.- So, although the editor■ of the Lyttelton -Times may think that "in the comprehensive view of a statesman " Mr. Daintree was right in declining "to have anything to do with such an arrangement," the truth is that Mr. JDaintree did not decline, as he was never asked "to have anything to do with "it. The editor of the Lyttelton Times may perhaps know of some company or set of men, apart from Messrs. Siemens BRQTHERS.and the Indo-European .Company, with,whom' " such an arrangement could have been made," as that which the firm and company named would not carry out. Messrs. Siemens Brothers at the outset of the London negotiations stated that after careful arid: anxious: consultations financial friends "of the highest influence and position," they.were forced to|conclude "that it would be not only very difficult but probably impossible now, and; for some time to come, and as long as -the shares of-most submarine telegraph-lines remain at so great count as they are at present,' to raise the necessary funds." Therefore, they asked for large''modifications, all in their, own favor, arid of course against the interests of the three colonies. Until the editor of the Lyttelton tiniis gives some information how the Agentscould have proceeded, it will be safe.to conclude that he forgot facts, and that he has ho ideahow anything beitercould have been done than was done. , ; The question of cable communication is assuredly, however, of very great importance ( to these .colonies-; : and our object has been to help towards its proper consideration, by preventing.misrepresen-. tations as to the past .having effect. The sneering attack upon Sir Julius Yogel will not have any effect—at least none such as the editor ;of the Lyttelton Times must be to desire. '