Lord Balfour of Burleigh, after careful inquiry into that proposal, came to the conclusion that 'we are strongly opposed to the general purchase of cables by the State.[1] The reasons for that opinion apparently were that private companies do business 'more efficiently' than Governments (paragraph 98); and also that in the innumerable dealings with foreign nations, private British citizens being relatively unhampered by negotiations other than those of their own business, and being of necessity experts, are decidedly more effective than ambassadors and plenipotentiaries. Thus a purchase of the cables by the State would result inevitably in a deterioration in the cable service and in a diminution of the international influence of Britain.
There is a third policy to be mentioned, and this is the right one. Clearly, though the State should not itself compete with, or embark upon, cable enterprise, yet, on the other hand, that service is of such extreme importance to the Empire that the State cannot stand aloof from its supervision. On the contrary, it has two instruments in its hand capable, if moderately employed, of controlling the cable companies with complete effect. When it grants landing rights, or when it grants a subsidy or guarantee of revenue, the State has a right to stipulate, among other regulations:
(a) That the cable shall be of an agreed efficiency as regards specification, construction, and power of transmitting words.
(b) That the landing-places in British dominions shall be approved by authorities specified, and shall, where thought necessary, terminate within the circle of the local defences.
(c) That the staff shall be controlled by competent British subjects.
(d) That the line shall be worked subject to the provisions and regulations of the International Telegraph Convention.
- ↑ Second Report, Summary, Section X.
