Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5139, 12 September 1877, Page 2

Very shortly after Parlianientwasopened, a paper #as presented respecting “Telegraph Cables : Negotiations and Conference.” There are documents in that paper that put it beyond question that those editors who, on the basis of Mr. Coote’s evidence at the Sydney Confer-, enoe, ; assailed! Sir Daniel Cooper and Sir Jjjiifus Vogel for their action in London during 1875, were guilty of injustice : but if, during the six weeks since tjie presentation of the paper those editors have- explained that their attacks were. made on insufficient grounds . or erroneous inferences, we have been unfortunate enough not to see their explanations. The “Lyttelton Times ” published four or five leading articles, meant to prove that Sir D. Cooper was a nobody in the negotiations, and that Sir J. Vogel was a conceited person who cared for flashy ' seeming success, and was therefore careless of the interests of the colony. The “Times” should, in this case have assumed the virtue of frank fairness, for it might have urged as an excuse that there was ground for crediting all that Mr. Cootb said, so long as it was not contradicted, although most of what he told the Conference was based on what he had himself been told. The complaints made were—l. That Messrs. Siemens Brothers did not receive a letter in which they were told that as they had failed to carry out their provisional agreement, they were not entitled to demand explanations why the Eastern Extension Co. was being negotiated with_ for the New Zealand cable. 2. That that firm ought to have been allowed to tender for that cable. 3. That a letter from Messrs. Siemens, offering to make an arrangement for two cables, other than chat which Mr. Cootb negotiated for them in Sydney in 1873, was not published with the ‘papers presented to Parliament last session. What are the explanations given as to these matters in the Parliamentary paper F.'3,. before mentioned? (1.) Sir Julius-Vogel says, “I distinctly remember that the letter was signed by me.” Sir D. Cooper says, “ I not only recollect the letter, I: also recollect directs ing that it. be delivered by hand, and was afterwards told that it had been so delivered, so any- miscarriage mnst have been in Messrs. Siemens Brothers’ own office.” (2:) Sir Julius Vogel explains that he did not blame Messrs. Siemens for failifag to carry but the 1873 agreement ; because events in London in 1875 were such that it might fairly be considered that their representative had agreed, on their behalf, to more than any body of capitalists would be prepared to carry out. But, in presence of that failure, he felt himself at liberty to negotiate with whom he thought best; ho selected the Eastern Extension Company; and he believed the results fully justified the ' selection. Sir D. Cooper goes further. He did not at first expect to make a contract for a cable between New South Wales and New Zealand forless than £2o,oooayear. He declares that Mr. Cootb told him that when the terms of the agreement made were telegraphed to Sydney—£7soo a year, of which New South Wales was to pay one-third only,—“ho could not believe it.” Indeed it was not believed by the New South Wales Government, and, says Sir Daniel, “ I was requested to repeat my telegram.” Still' further, Sir Daniel says, with reference to- a time after Mr. Coote’s arrival in England, and when Sir J. Vogel was inGermany, “ I saw Captain Cootb in London'two or throe times, and from what he then said, lam certain that the minimum . amount that. Messrs. Siemens . Brothers would have asked for the Now

Zealand cable would have been £17,500 a year.” (3.) As to the unpublished letter Sir Julius Vogel states, “ I can only suppose that jt.was not considered worth while to publish it when the papers were prepared. It was a letter enclosing some bulky articles ' association of a hew., company. Its date was a month subsequent to the time when the three representatives had : broken off' negotiations with Messrs; Siemens Brothers, and some days after I had come to an understanding with another company regarding the outline of . an arrangement for the New Zealand - and Australian. cable. It therefore had no importance.” Sir Daniel Cooper writes that he regarded the .letter of May 12, 1875, as a “try-on.” Thisia the one which Mr. Coote said was not answered —the one 'as to which there was a complaint that it was not published, was dated a week or so earlier. He adds, “We could give no other answer. than we did. Anything they could haVe said or written at that time would have had no effect on you or on me, and if we had neglected the work we had then in hand, we should have failed in our duty to the colonies we represented. It is childish to accuse you of suppressing a letter or statement which could be of no possible importance in any way.” Again, he writes, “At none of the interviews I had in London with Captain Coots, nor when I saw him in Sydney last year, nor in a long letter I afterwards received from him whilst he was in Tasmania, did he allude to a grievance either he or Messrs. Siemens Brothers had .against you or me separately or jointly. Had he complained, I should have proved the delivery of the letter of 21st May, 1875, to Messrs. Siemens Brothers ; and I should have proved how the negotiations with those gentlemen failed.” We think the public will recognise, whatever the “Lyttelton Times ” may do, that the answer to all the latest complaints respecting the cable negotiations of 1875, is convincing and complete. - .