CO885-(6-7) — Page 184

193

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

LLC.O. 885

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

22

neither the Imperial nor Colonial Governments can well afford it, would, in my opinion, be an unwarrantable waste of money.

If, however, the Governments concerned consider a second cable is required for strategic purposes, which I very much doubt, they must of course pay for it, and as I have frequently stated, my Company would be quite prepared to undertake the work on fair and reasonable terms, which terms would necessarily be more favourable to the Governments than could be obtained from any other Company, owing to the exceptional facilities possessed by the existing system.

The probability of opposition arising from foreign sources does not in the least alarm me, but should competition be brought about through English and Colonial agencies on the proposed terms the result must inevitably be that no dividend would be forthcoming for the new Company, and little, if any, for the pioneer service.

I have thought it only fair to yourself as well as to the Companies which I represent, that you should be placed in possession of the above information as you will doubtless be making further references to the Pacific cable movement, and with so much attention now being paid to all public utterances on the subject, it is of the greatest importance that all figures bearing on the question should be as accurately stated as possible.

Yours, &c. (Signed) JOHN PENDER.

Sir Charles Tupper, G.C.M.G., C.B.

&c.

&c.

&c.

P.S.-I am sending a copy of this letter to the "Times.”

DEAR SIR JOHN Pender,

Enclosure 2 in No. 24.

Victoria Chambers, 17, Victoria Street,

London, May 17, 1894.

In reply to your letter of the 15th instant, received yesterday, after I had read it in the "Times," I must first express my regret that you were prevented by indisposition from being present when my paper (of which I had sent you a copy) was read at a meeting of the Royal Colonial Institute on the 8th May.

You say:

"I cannot allow your statement to pass unchallenged that the protest "against the proposed cable is largely based upon fallacies."'

Those who read that protest will find that it is largely based upon two statements which I regard as fallacious: First, that "the existing service was established solely by private enterprise; no Government subsidy, guarantee, or exclusive landing rights having been granted to the Company."

I do not think any person reading that statement would suppose that the "existing ' companies with which the proposed Pacific cable will compete are now, and for many years past have been, assisted by Government_subsidies and guarantees, amounting to the present time to 2,100,000l. The Eastern Extension Company alone have received of that amount about 643,000/., and the African lines, described by you as an alternative route to Australia, 1,337,000%.

Second, that the calculations made in the protest to show the unprofitable character of the undertaking assumed that the life of the cable would be only 14 years.

66

You say: "You are entirely mistaken in stating that some 5,350 miles (or about 30 per cent.) of the 18,000 of cable now forming the system of the Eastern Extension "Telegraph Company is more than 20 years old, and is still in working condition.”

My authority for that statement was the Berne list published in 1892, as furnished by the Eastern Extension Company to the International Telegraph Bureau, and which accepted as reliable. The following are the figures :

From Madras to Penang

Date of Laying.

Length of Cables in Nautical Miles.

1870

1,455

From Penang to Singapore

1870

416

From Saigon to Hong Kong

From Singapore to Saigon (Cochin China)

1871

637

1871

983

From Singapore to Batavia (Java)

1870

539

From Banjoewangie to Port Darwin

1871

1,137

From Flinders, near Melbourne to Low Head (Tasmania)

1869

180

Total

5,346

23

I will now add the highest existing authority on that question. Sir John Pender, at the meeting of the Brazilian Telegraph Company on the 2nd of this month, said: "As you are aware, one of these cables is 20 years old, and therefore it is at all events approaching a period of age which causes us to be careful in providing for its "renewal."

You say: "Then again your description of the existing system as a monopoly' "cannot be justified." I do not know what you would call a monopoly, but I have under my hand the report made to the Government of Canada by Mr. Sandford Fleming (who was one of the Canadian Delegates to the Colonial Conference held in London in 1887). In that report, speaking of the discussion upon this cable question, he says: "The Postmaster-General, Mr. Raikes, stated very forcibly that it would be absolutely impossible for the English people or for Her Majesty's Government to recognise the "monopoly which the Company seemed to claim."

"

64

With the evidence before me that active efforts are now in operation to promote the construction of a Pacific cable under the control of a foreign Government, I cannot share your doubt as to its probability, nor can I agree with you as to the strategic value of a British Pacific Cable, concurring, as I do, with the opinion expressed by the "Globe" of the 19th ultimo, which in an article very friendly to the existing lines, says: "In the "first place, there can be no question at all that a cable across the Pacific would be of "the very highest strategical importance to us. Not only would it furnish us with a duplicate medium of communication with our furthest Colonial possessions, but it "would also have the advantage of standing less chance of being cut by our enemy in "time of war. The eastward-bound cables, by means of which we communicate with "Australia at present, touch far too many places en route to be strategically safe. Moreover, if an enemy should succeed in cutting the cable, it would probably be "somewhere between Aden and England, in which case India would be completely cut "off from telegraphic communication. The proposed Pacific cable, however, would "then enable us to transmit our messages by an alternative western route."

I do not propose to discuss the question of traffic or the normal increase that may reasonably be expected, further than to say that I have reason to believe that no difficulty will be experienced in securing the construction and operation of the cable upon the lines suggested by the Wellington Conference or such a modification as may be adopted by the Conference shortly to be held at Ottawa.

Having confined my remarks to the principal points raised in your letter,

Sir John Pender, G.C.M.G., M.P.

"

1 remain, &c. (Signed) CHARLES TUPPER.

P.S.-I have sent a copy of this letter to the Times."

DEAR SIR CHARLES TUPPER,

Enclosure 3 in No. 24.

Winchester House, E.C.,

May 30, 1894. ABSENCE from home has alone prevented me from replying to your letter of the 17th instant earlier.

First. Permit me to point out that although it be true that certain of the Australasian Governments have from time to time granted subsidies and guarantees to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, my statement that telegraphic communication with Australia was established solely by private enterprise is quite accurate, the subsidies and guarantees having been given for specific purposes other than the establishment of the communication. For instance, the subsidies were granted to enable the Company to duplicate the Australian section of the line, not because it was unequal to the traffic requirements, but because the Governments and telegraphing public had found to their cost that no confidence could be placed in a single line, and as my experience fully bears out this view, I contend that if a Pacific cable is to afford the same measure of security as the existing system, it must be duplicated. The guarantees were granted, as you are aware, to obtain the substantial reduction of tariff from 9s. 4d. to 4s. per

word.

Secondly. Your reference to the Berne list, as your authority for stating that the Eastern Extension Company's original cables, although more than 20 years old, were still in working order, explains how you have been misled in the matter, the list only

C 4