Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 245

Letters and postcards

Newspapers, circulars, &c.,

183

From the United Kingdom. From India and Aden.

lbs. 96,300

lbs.

83,800

259,400

1,561,200

The result, it is argued, is that the United Kingdom makes more use of the Service than India, and also that the United Kingdom has the advantage of the larger collection of postage, whereas India has to bear the expense of distributing the heavier mails.

7. To meet this case, the Indian Government suggests that a new principle should be adopted. viz., that the Postal Union rules should be applied to the sea-transit, as if it were provided by a foreign Government, and that Postal Union. rates should be charged on all mails to the sending country.

As an alternative scheme it is stated in the Indian case (page XIII.) that "India would be prepared to return to the arrangement for the pooling of postage and sea-postage which was in force from 1857 to 1891."

8. The Post Office, on the other hand, states that if the principles of Lord Halifax's settlement are re-opened, there are various claims which can be equitably raised against India which have not thus far been pressed, e.g.-

(a.) The cost of extra speed on the Bombay Line;

(b.) The cost of sea-sorting (7,5007.), which, it is alleged, was established

at the instance and for the benefit of India.

9. After a careful consideration of the two cases, and of the arguments used in support of them, I have arrived at the following conclusions:

(a.) That, as regards the Australian Service, the arrangement proposed by the Post Office should be adopted during the continuance of the contract, and that 85,000/. should be appropriated to that Service. When the present contract expires, it appears to me that it would be desirable to enter into separate contracts for the two Services.- (b.) That, as regards the sections between Colombo and Shanghai, India should not continue to be made liable for any loss which may be incurred on these sections, but that she should pay transit rates for any use she may make of this portion of the mail route, the receipts from such transit rates being credited to the sections. (c.) That the postage collected in the two countries, and the receipts from other administrations for land and sea transit on mails sent over the line should be pooled, and the balance of the united collections, after deducting the cost of continental transit and rates paid to other countries, should be equally divided.

(d.) That, subject to the above-mentioned conditions, the apportionment of the subsidy, 245,000l., should be regulated in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the case of the Post Office (now embodied in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the present case), with this exception, that the Indian Government should bear the whole expense of sea-sorting on the Bom' ay line, which, by Article 35 of the contract, is fixed at 7,500/.

Under this article the Postmaster-General may give notice to the Company that he no longer requires provision to be made for sea-sorting, and may deduct 7,5007. from the subsidy. I under- stand that he would be willing to give this notice if the Indian Government desires him to do so.

(e.) That an account should be prepared by the Imperial Post Office and audited by the India Office, and that the amounts thus ascertained shall be payable by the contributing countries to the end of the

contract.

The Lords Commissioners of

Her Majesty's Treasury.

I have the honour to be,

My Lords,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed) MORLEY.