THE PACIFIC CABLE.

Waikato Argus, Volume VII, Issue 456, 4 July 1899, Page 3

THE PACIFIC CABLE.

DEPUTATION TO ENGLISH GOVERNMENT. [UNITED press ASSOCIATION. J (BY KLKCTKIC TELEGRAPH. London, July 1. Lord Tweeddale, on behalf of a deputation to Sir Michael Hicks • Beach, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and -Mr Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colon'es, from the Eastern and Eastern Extension Cable Compauies, submitted that Great Britain's joining the colonies in direct competition with the companies was an objectionable and unjustifiable interference with private enterprise, and opposed to the spirit of the International Telegraph Convention. The traffic be tween Canada and Australasia was insignificant. Tlio Australasian traffic with the United States was only live j-er c nt. of the w hole Australasian traffic, and was wholly inadequa'e to justify a cable- Lord fweeddale aUo said ihe colonies were by no means unanimous in favour of the Pacific cable. It was untrue thit the companies were monopolists. The Australesian traffic of the last two years had slightly decreased, instead of showing a 10 per cent, annual increase as the Pacific Committe anticipatid. The Pacific scheme would not be entirely "all British," because messages must use either the American oblesor the American land lines. A three shillings Austialion rate would entail an annual less on the companies, on the basis of the existing tariff of £l3O 000. If £750,000 was diverted to the Pacific cab'e, this loss would be incrcasod by nearly £74,000, making a total of £204,000 out of a revenue of £313,000. Owing to a rise in the price of materials, the luying of a Pacfic cable capable of sending five paying words per minute would cost £2,000,000, with arnual charges amounting to £162,000. If the cable was duplicated, the annual charge would be increased. The traffic betweeu the Cape and Australia was far more encitltd to consideration thau the Canadian traffic, and was The existing communication with Austialia was all under British control, except Java, which was practically neutral. If the principal of State competition was e tablished, State ownership of cables would become the rule, involving the companies in the additional disadvantage of foreign competition. If the Governments determined for th 6 Pacific route, the companies were prepared to lay a cable via Honolulu if guaranteed 2Jd ptr cent, iu stock, the new company taking over the Associated Company's at their present market value. The present reserves, amounting to betweeu £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, would then he available for laying the Pacific and other cables, and the revenue would give a margin of £50,000 a year, available for reduction of rates and the redeeming of capital. It was worth consideration that the Pacific cable would give American messages a bounty of Is per word over English messages to Australasia. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach replied that he was surprised the companies had not urged their objection to Government interference before the Government Committee. Moreover, the Government did already compete with private enterprise. The companies had received considerable subsidies, and were unnecessarily alarmed for the future The Government would have aided the other route if India and the colonies had been willing. It was unlikely that the present action would become a world's precedent. Mr Chamberlain thought the complaints regarding high rates were justifiable. The companies conserved the profits, placing enormous sums in their reserves, which should otherwise have been applied to a reduction of rates. He admitted that the Government was partly actuated by sentiment in supporting an " all British " line, which Honolulu was not. The Cape route was impossible since the co'onies had repudiated it. If the Pacific cable was not laid by Great Britain, the Americans would extend their Hawaii cable to Australia. The companies' alarm was causeless. The Government had no idea of embatking in competition regardless of profit and los?.