Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4963, 17 February 1877, Page 2

We recently proved by reference to Par-i liamontary papers that the Lyttelton Times had published misleading statements as to the telegraph cable negotiations in London during the early part of 1&75; and we pointed out that such statements were calculated to prevent an impartial consideration of the cable question, which has again been brought prominently before the public through the proceedings of the Sydney Conference. We are not prepared to discuss those pro- j ceedings until wo know authoritatively j! what they were. The Lyttelton Times has, some sickly nonsense and wild sugges-; tions upon the subject in an article pub- , lished on Wednesday. Taking the text: of a Press Agency telegram as his basis,) the editor tries to show that the Confer* ence was alike ignorant of what has beem done and what should be attempted pand . especially he tries to show that tjie H6;iu Gr. McLean and New Zealaad have beeh severally and jointly fooled. ,;; Of bourse, the editor knows the uselessness rdf . such writing upon such a basis phut, it may

:serve tff>oreate;prejudice, and it did serve .as an opening for an article mainly meant for-another purpose. ’* The Lyttelton Times, without offering lief, repeats that it believes,that, in ,1875, 'something in the nature of the Sydney agreement of 1873 might have been secured, that is to say, that some company or capitalists might have been found ready to arrange, in terms acceptable to New South Wales, Queensland, and .New Zealand, for laying a cable between New Zealand and Australia, and one from Normanton to Singapore. It repeats that the failure to find such a company, or such capitalists, was due to Sir J. Vogel’s hurry to effect something, regardless whether that something was the best possible, or even barely good in itself ; and it asserts that a consequent monopoly has been created, to the prejudice of the colonies. The reply to all this is, that there are no grounds for such statements or charges. - They will be believed in by those who think the Lyttelton Times knows better what could have been done in London in 1875 than ■was,, discoverable by the agents of the three colonies, who were constantly consulting in London, There will not be any other believers. Messrs. Siemens Brothers from the first labored to obtain terms more advantageous than those which had been accepted by their Sydney agent, and ratified by them in 1873. Queensland broke off negotiations because the agents of.. New South Wales and New Zealand were willing to yield one change as to route, which Messrs. Siemens Brothers ■ were anxious to obtain. The only other offerers to do anything (Sir J. Carmichael and Mr. F. Gisborne) advised in effect that the Governments should raise the necessary money. The Parliamentary papers show that Sir J. Vogel was staunch in his adherence to Messrs. Siemens’ until it was clear that what they wanted was something wholly differing from the Sydney agreement. The Lyttelton Times parades its power in the “derangement of epitaphs,” by declaring that a refusal, to meet the wishes of Messrs. Siemens, after they had declined, to carry out the 1873 arrangement, was “ couched in true

Vogelian vulgarity.” A parrot that has “ learned to swear” is a nuisance, but is not responsible—a writer who picks terms from the worst samples of Parliamentary oratory to be found in Hansard, and repeats them haphazard is offensive, and is responsible. The letter in question is printed in the Parliamentary paper, F. 4. Any impartial man who reads it must conclude that the Lyttelton Times' description of it is indolent. If the editor’s purpose could be aided by directing attention to another part of the correspondence, he would probably abuse Sir J. Vogel for the plainness with which Mr. John Pender, Chairman of the Eastern Extension Railway Company, was at first told that New Zealand did not recognise its indebtedness to that company, or that the company had a claim to be specially considered in, the matter. The Lyttelton Times writes about a letter in which. Messrs. Siemens suggested modifications of the provisional agreement of 1873. In fact, as we have said, such, suggestions were continuous, until the provisional agreement had vanished, so far as those gentlemen were concerned, and one of the agents had also vanished from the scene. It was not possible, apparently, for anything to ..be done by the three colonies, unless the whole question were referred back to the Governments, and they recommended to the Legislatures an arrangement wholly distinct from and greatly more costly' than that of 1873, which Messrs. Siemens declared they could not carry out. That would have meant—supposing the Legislatures to have accepted such recommendation—that by this time an agreement might possibly have been in preparation for the manufacture of a N ew Zealand cable ; probably it would have meant that nothing would have' yet been done towards securing a cable.

\ What has been secured 1 A cable which has worked admirably and costs very little. The liability of the colony in respect of it ceases nine years hence. No real monopoly has been created.'lf asecond cjtble were laid next week, any message so directed would be transmitted through that cable. In several ways advantages not contemplated by the provisional agreement of 1873 have been gained for the public. These things should be known to the Lyttelton Times and that newspaper should endeavor, to discuss. large public questions on their merits, personal dislikes and private remembrances being ignored. J, .... . . ,