CO885-(16-18) — Page 235

། ག ། ་། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O-885

17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

12

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: Who own the wires?

Sir SPENCER WALPOLE: The Eastern have got special wires from London to all the great centres.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: All through England?

Sir SPENCER WALPOLE: I quite admit the small local traffic comes over the Post Office wires, but the great mass of traffic is London, and that is collected direct by the Companies, the Eastern Extension Company, and by the Atlantic Companies in the case of our cable.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: I did not know in what proportion and you do, but there must be a considerable amount of unrouted traffic handed in, at least traffic delivered to the Post Office at once where there are no land lines under the control of the Telegraph Companies.

Sir SPENCER WALPOLE: The whole of the unrouted traffic handed in to the Post Office for transmission to Australia is given a preference by the Government over the Pacific Cable, subject to rates.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: It is given a preference.

Sir SPENCER WALPOLE: It is sent over the Pacific Cable.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: Unrouted?

Sir SPENCER WALPOLE: The whole unrouted traffic handed in to the Post Office is sent over the Pacific Cable, subject to rates not being higher.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: You can go further than that, and this is my point, where

you own the land wires, you can route it as you like, regardless of the direction of the sender?

Sir SPENCER WALPOLE: No.

Mr. MERCER: It is against the International Convention, Sir.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: What International Convention?

Mr. MERCER: The Berne Telegraph Convention; you are bound to send by the route which is prescribed by the sender..

see

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: I went into one of the City Post Offices to what steps were taken; I asked them to show me a blank form for a cablegram to Australia. I was handed a blank form. There is nothing in the world in that blank form to indicate to the sender that there is such a thing in the world as a Pacific Cable.

Mr. MERCER: If you had sent that cable it would have been sent to the Central Telegraph Office at St. Martin le Grand, and it would have been sent over the Pacific Cable.

Sir WILLLAM MULOCK: But you ask the customer, there is a blank, to fill in the name of the Cable Company.

Mr. MERCER: You need not fill in any name at all.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: You ask them to do it, and I assume they do it. Who in England knows of the existence of the Pacific Cable? The man in the Post Office knows it.

Mr. MERCER: It is in the Postal Guide, Sir.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: In the Postal Guide it is hidden away; it is only put in in a parenthetical way, and it may be known to the man who knows what it means. The Post Office Guide does not say there is a Pacific Cable; it buries the Pacific Cable; I looked at it myself to see if I could find any help from the Guide. Take Australia; the situation in Australia is rather embarrassing, and before we could, I think, assent to the existing state of affairs, even for a pooling arrangement, we ought to have a basis for future existence; and as I mentioned, I would, if it were possible, avoid referring to the past; I am only doing so for the purpose of arriving at a modus vivendi in the future, I would not like by any silence to have assent assumed

13

to what is asked, because, doubtless, when the Senate meets after this Conference,

it will be asked to sanction the ratification of the Agreement. The ratification of that Agreement I would consider destructive to the Pacific Cable; it would be the death knell of the Pacific Cable.

The CHAIRMAN: How so, if it is a pooling Agreement?

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: The pooling would come to an end, and the Agreement would last for ever.

The CHAIRMAN: Why?

The EARL OF JERSEY: The Agreement could be for 10 years.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: That is where I think there would be a misunder- standing. It is an Agreement which pretends to be entered into for 10 years, but judging from the past it is handing over the control, the different partners may at present enjoy, to the judgment of the Commonwealth of Australia. It means that that Agreement would last until we can convince the Government of Australia that it ought to be brought to an end. Now, the Government of Australia to-day has taken the view that they will disregard the wishes of the other Govern- ments, and they have decided in favour of a particular course; they will not be governed by the advice of the Governments concerned. If, therefore, we should allow them to make an Agreement, that we should give assent to their making an Agreement, which is to last for 10 years certain, and for such longer period as the Government of Australia choose to allow, that would practically be allowing that Agreement, so far as the past guides us, to be an Agreement for ever, for we have not found yet that our views in regard to the relations between the Eastern Extension and the Pacific Cable and the Commonwealth are always appreciated.

I would regard that Agreement, therefore, although a 10-year Agreement, as practically an Agreement in perpetuity and as extending to the whole area of Australia, the features that we complain of that are now limited by the Agreement to New South Wales and to that State alone. It is not fair, it is not correct to say that that proposed Agreement brings this complained of arrangement to an end at a definite period. If it did, then there would be something intelligible in it. We would know where we were if that proposed Agreement said, that at the end of 10 years the Agreement should come to an end definitely; then we would know what we were embarking upon, but under the terms of the Agreement we are simply handing over the control of it for all time to the Australian Government; is not that correct?

Sir SPENCER WALPOLE: I quite see your argument; of course it is conceivable that a pooling Agreement might be made to run with the existence of the other Agreement.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: I, for my part, do not wish to introduce anything contro- versial into the Conference, and would much prefer it if we could avoid doing so; but if it is necessary to express ourselves in very plain language for the infor- mation of the Australian Government later on, I think we should not hesitate to do it. A pooling arrangement may come to an end; we may make a pooling arrangement, and it may come to an end, then what is the situation when it comes to an end?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I do not follow quite. What is there to prevent you entering into an arrangement? An Agreement is supposed to be existing for ten years, or, say, existing in perpetuity; why should not that pooling arrange- ment be made to stand or fall with this?

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK: If we make a pooling arrangement to run with it there is no necessity for the other Agreement; there is no necessity for it.

The CHAIRMAN: That might be a matter of debate; surely we can hardly say that, can we straight away? It is quite possible, is it not, to arrive at the result by a pooling agreement even considering the existence of the arrangements which have been made at present, by which an equitable division might be made. That seems to me--I may be quite wrong-to be the result of all the four speeches that we have heard. After all it is not a question of the past, it is a question

: