Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1877.

Happy are the disingenous—perhaps ; as long as they remain unexposed. In commenting recently upon an article published by the Lyttelton Times, we said that that newspaper quoted evidence given Mr. Aujdlby Coote at the late Telegraph Cable Conference in Sydney ; and w© asked whether it was true that Mr. Coote was not in London during the negotiations there, with Messrs. Siemens Brothers, in 1875. The question seemed to us to be important, because, in the quotation given by the Times, Mr. Coote was made to speak as though he took part (at least) in those negotiations. Whence did the Times obtain what it published ? This, too, seems an important question. For an examination of the “ Report, minutes of proceedings, &0., of the Cable Conference, held in Sydney, in January-February, 1877,” shows us that Mr. Coote was not in London while the negotiations were going on. He appears to have noticed the form in which, excusably enough, he gave his evidence in Sydney ; and, no doubt in order to get rid of the appearance of his claiming to have , been directly concerned .in them, he appended a “Note (on revision).” In that note he says, “I arrived in London twelve hours afterwards, when tlm Messrs. Siemens atonce informedme that it was no fault of theirs”— —i. e. , no fault of theirs that the negotiations had come to an end before Mr. Coote arrived in London. Did the Lyttelton Times know of this note? Was Mr. Coote’s evidence purposely quoted, as something which Sir Julius Yogel, “for the sake of his public reputation,” was bound to answer or explain ; and was the fact purposely kept from the.knowledge of the readers of the Times that this evidence was only “hearsay”? Our copy of the “Report,” &c., was received direct from Sydney. Was one received by the Lyttelton Times ? The official report of the Conference, to which the Times was good enough to direct attention, enables us to show how singularly editors and others misrepresent' things—not intentionally, we will.assume —when a commercial interest or a political animosity has to be gratified. We take first the case of the Times:

Our contemporary in an article published last Saturday week, says

Again, on the subject of the negotiations, Mr. Coote stated that “one afternoon the conditions fell through for the moment only.” “In the New Zealand Act,” he continued, “ ratifying the agreement, Sir Julius Vogel inserted, a clause authorising the Government of that colony to consent to a cable direct from New Zealand; and on the following morning we saw for the first time in the newspaper that a contract had been signed for a separate cable to Australia from New Zealand, with a different company. We were surprised to see this in the morning newspaper, ’ having left Sir JuUus Vogel overnight without receiving any intimation of it, and having been prepared te lay down the New Zealand cable separately ourselves."

The quotations in this extract represent 1 parts only of the answer to a question put by Mr. Stuart, one of the representatives of New South Wales. It is desirable that the’ portion omitted by the Times should be supplied. Mr. Stuart, referring to the provisional agreement made in 1873, said, “I should like to know why that contract was not carried out.” Mr. Coote answered :

It was understood that the cable should be put down in, a. reasonable time—in three months —and it was nearly eighteen months before the three Governments agreed to do it. The Instructions were so stringent that not a single concession could be granted, and one afternoon the conditions fell through, for the moment only.

Then followed the sentences quoted by the Times. Being pressed by Mr. Stuart, Mr. Coote said, firstly, “ it was understood that the whole thing would be ratified in three months, and that I should have to go to England by the next mail;” secondly, that the New South Wales and Queensland Parliaments were in session at the time, and that “Sir Julius Yogel left here with the understanding that it should be done at once.” This evidence, be it remembered, came from the maker, on behalf of Messrs/ Siemens Brothers, of the 1873 agreement, the ninth paragraph of which is after being approved of by the respective Governments, to be subject to ratification by the respective Parliaments ; and the : details to be arranged in London by representativesappointed by the three colonies. ” Of course, a newspaper desiring to use Mr. Coote and his evidence for an attack upon Sir Julius Yogel, could not publish the sentences we have supplied above. The provisional agreement bears date “Sydney, 14th February, 1873.” In 1875, Mr. Coote says that the under-, standing was that the cable should be put down “in three months that the whole thing was to bo ratified in that time; and so on. /But the agreement he made necessitated approval by three Governments aud ratification by each of three Parliaments before the details of manufacture could he discussed in London. It is not necessary to inquire whether the Legislatures of New South Wales and Queensland were in session on the 14th February, 1873. Mr. Coote may be correct in the statement that they were. But will anybody who knows New Zealand credit the statement that Mr. Coote was led to believe, or was ever told, that an agreement made provisionally on the 14th February, 1873, 1 would bo ratified by the New Zealand Assembly on or before the 14th May in that year ? His statement that he so understood must be due to forgetfulness : for it is impossible he could have been told that a ratification should bo got from our Parliament at least a month before the date which for years has been the earliest on which the Parliament has met. Did the Lyttelton Times reject this nonsensical introduction to the evidence it quoted ; or was the useful garbling done by some other newspaper? Such an introduction, added to an announce-: ment of the suppressed fact that iu all

Mr. Coote said about the London negotiations he was but attempting to repeat what he had been told, would have taken the force out of any attack based upon his evidence.

The Lyttelton Times having reminded us of the Conference report, we will still further supplement our contemporary’s extracts from Mr. Coote’s evidence. These appear as the last two questions and answers:—

203. Preaidant: You said the Government refused you a slight concession in the last contract, but you did not say what that concession was?—l am not quite sure of the exact concession asked for; it was merely an alteration of some of the terms of the agreement which was entered into. 204. Then you do not know whether it was a slight one or not?—l have always been given to understand that it was a very reasonable request. It was not a question of money at all; it was merely a question of landing cables. Vagueness may bring ridicule, but it is often convenient. Was ever a more vague answer given by anybody than that by Mr. Coote —“ It was merely an alteration of some of the terms of the agreement ” ! It might be held to cover everything essential or only a few things of trifling importance. But Mr. Coote was forced to quit vagueness; and he stands committed to the assertion that what brought to an end the negotiations with Messrs. Siemens Brothers ‘ ‘ was not a question of money at all,” but “ merely a question of landing cables.” If this be correct, Mr. Coote cuts from the Lyttelton Times all pretence for its often repeated assertion that Sir J. Vogel brought the negotiations to an end, or broke them off; because the question of “ landing cables” would have been yielded on behalf of New South Wales and New Zealand, but the Queensland Government telegraphed to its representative, “ Government insist on separate line via Macassar, otherwise contract not to be entered into.” But, in truth, it was “a question of money” as well. Mr. Daintebe communicated to his colleagues the instructions just quoted, by a letter dated 24th March, 1875. On the 25th February, Messrs. Siemens had recommended ‘ ‘ the granting of more favorable conditions,” pecuniarily ; on the 19th March, they wrote that the allowance of “£12,000 provided to cover expenses” of working, &c., “are far too small;” and on the Bth April, addressing Sir D. Cooper, they explained what allowance they would require instead of £12,000, tor they say that “ the company intended to be formed for the carrying out of the whole scheme should be allowed to earn £BO,OOO a year to cover the working expenses, maintenance, reserve fund, and to give them affair chance of earning a reasonable dividend, before any receipt of the company should be taken in reduction of the £50,000 intended to be guaranteed by the Colonial Governments.” Thatseems to us to raise' a very important “ question of money.” .It was more than a month after the date of this letter, namely, on May 12th, that Messrs. Siemens wrote .asking whether it was true the Eastern I Extension Co. was being negotiated with; and it must evidently have been some time subsequent to the i2th of May when Mr. Coote reached London,: fpr ■he appears to have arrived after the agreement with that company had been, in effect, at least, completed. It is not a pleasant task, to track and expose such misrepresentations of facts, and of statements in official documents, as . those we have no w tracked. We do not say that all the shame of these misrepresentations and suppressions falls upon the Lyttelton Times ; that could only’be said if we knew that the Times had had access to the official report of the Sydney Conference, and we have not such knowledge. But the suppressions and misrepresentations, to whomsoever they may be due, exactly suit the case against Sir J. Vogel which the Times has long been laboring to establish ; and they have been used in aid,of that case. Happy are the disingenuous—perhaps ; as long as they remain unexposed. •

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18770717.2.7

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5090, 17 July 1877, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,690

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1877. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5090, 17 July 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1877. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5090, 17 July 1877, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert