The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-18
TIE CABLE CONTROVERSY.


TIE CABLE CONTROVERSY.
-~~
Nr. simontsn's Reply 60 the Directors.
NEW YORK, May IL 1871.
Messrs PETER COOPER, MOSES TAYLOR, MARSHALL
o. ROBERTS and WILSON G. HUNT
GESTLExnN-The letter Of Nr. Cyrus w. Field,
which you joined him yesterday In signing, a. d.
rectors OF the New York. Newfoundland and Lon
don Telegraph Company, avoids so completely the
issue pending between the press and the cable COM
panes that am compelled tC believe that You have
not been permitted to know tine facts upon which
the discussion rests. The letter Of Mr.. Henry
Weaver, 30 far nom enlightening you. adroitly
evades the true ISSUE Its only apparent purpose Is
TO divert attention from tho truth py answering
complaint which we never preferred, while the real
grievance Is totally ignored Believing that you do
not desre to lend your names to the support OF so
transparent fraud, perpetrated for the conceal
ment Of grave onehce, respectfully invite your
attention TO the real issue a. It stands.
You say that "by law, by agreement between tie
different connecting telegraph lines and by order Of
the directors : all messages are and always
have been forwarded = in the exact order
Of their receipts" and you add. ar any person In
Europe or America knows Of q single instance IN
which this regulation has been violated he win
confer favor by communicating the Same In
writing" 1t would seem clear nom the above that
Mr.. Field has failed TO inform you that we did, on
the s1st Of January last present written and formal
complaint showing nine distinct and specific m
been violated; that on the TN Of March we renewed
the complaint and demand for explanation, In such
pose technical preiexS a. 4 shield TO cover the
wrong; that or about the 2sth or March Mr. Henry
London Verbally confessed that he he'd dsi6erstes
ana systemaucally violated the law az you
n 1Sss ss + X yr s NJ %e SSS
forwarded y In writing and that to this hour We
Field the hrst written word OF that formal reply.
Now that you, gentlemen, have personally inter-
closure By your once Of Mr. weavers response to
was founded and s an abass Sas
existed, which shall be exposed and punished as an
earnest taas It's repetition win not be tolerated or
Allow me to add few words as to the letter Of
MI. Weaver communicated by you to the press and
IDENTITY designed TO befog the public it utterly IT,
nores our specific compliant OF nine distinct In
ment the rule OF the cable companies the rights OF
its patrons and the obligations Of personal honor
we did charge, it offers apology Tor the adoption by
your compsnies OF rule limiting messages TO nfty
not complain OF 1t now. 1t has not worked to our
disadvantage except in trinlng pccuniary sense.
IS noed ana SSS is q uniformly %rS nS
Of both the law and regulations, in the face Of re.
iterated assurances from Ar Field, Mr.. Weaver and
sorvsd and that IS insult Worthy q naRnsn
possible at the bands Of suon honorable menu
The law as stated BY yourselves has been violated
TO the public injury and we have been utterly un-
able to obtain from your associates any explanation,
service viii NOT continue 10 be subject to manrac.
tces which must inevitably destroy public conf
dence IN tnat means Of communication between Eu-
Again, we respectfully inquire whether you sus.
tain MI; Viewers inferred suggestion that half
rate business TO the press Is charity and not
titled to protection BY lawi Certainly we never so
understood y me half rate on political news was
own interest," as an inducement to the press to do
an Increased business over their lines. we never
sage should be delayed an Instant because it came
under the half-rate rule, or for any other reason
save % s nqse 1
would subject any part o. our service to danger Of
would be transm,ted in the order Of 1s n ne business
Just here, however, let me remind you that the
SPECIFIC message delivered 70 US on the 2sth janu.
which II was entitled to precedence, was a CONNER.
cial message. In code, on which we pay full rates,
and not OF nifty words II follows that no shadow
Of excuse for tts delay can be predcated upon even
an outisw and not entitled to be tresied Justly.
In my letter to Mr.. Field dated May TO- protesting
against his failure to give the facts IN response
to our specific complaints, a. presented TO him in
letter from Mr.. Weaver, said:--
we arc entitled S have IN writing tho fact: Informally
nqs Or 'H :a u ss M
the delay had other purpose enable him to with
draw the statement made fn the immediate presence OF In
noxious to criticism, only because less frank and full
This anticipation seems to have been well.founded,
for instead OF being furnished with g explanation
nom London Of specific instances Of wrong, we are
shown copy OF letter dated in New York on the
18th OF May, which says not word about our COM
paint but endeavors TO evade 1t By subterfuge and
special pleading.
Finally. gentlemen. we respectfully submit that
your request 70 be Informed or any violation OF tile
cable law and regulations is quito useless go long
as you have not the power f0r we assume your
willingness) 70 compel the delivery to us OF the
..forma! reply" to our SPECIFIC charges Of January
own ONCE, and which Mr.. Field, while virtually
admitting the possession OF It, refuses to place in
our hands. OF what utility is new complaint SO
long as complaints Of the past are thus ignoredi
j. W. sIMoNToN, General Agent