Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Bilag - XIX. Uddrag af Vidneforklaringer, afgifne i den af Underhuset i Anledning af Telegrafbillen nedsatte specielle Komité
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
absolutely to expire in eight years, and you gave
20 years’ purchase of the then profits upon those
wires? — The present profits.
1995. Tbat you consider is a bad bargain,
and I dare say you are right? — 1 did not say
that it ivas a bad bargain.
1996. I want to know if it is worth your
while to give 20 years’ purchase for an eight
years’ lease, why you say that you cannot give
more than 10 years’ purchase for a 30 years’
concession? — 1 have told you the additional
element of the precarious character of submarine,
property.
1997. Do you remember the snow storm
in England which two or three years ago de
stroyed all the telegraphs in England? — Yes.
1998. I want to know whether that is not
at least as precarious as anything that has hap
pened to the submarine cable; I am not talking
about the Atlantic cable, but the submarine
cable between England and France, or England
and Holland?— The cost of a new cable did not
fall upon the Telegraph Companies.
1999. What did it cost? — 1 believe that
the Electric Telegraph Company charged 10,000
l. for it.
2000. For that single snowstorm? — Yes.
2001. That is not precarious property I
understand you to say? — lt is precarious to
that extent, but the risk is much less than the sub -
marine cable; 1 presume that if the cable parted
it could not be recovered again, 10,000 l. would
not replace it.
2002. I understand that you have come to
no estimate of these matters with the Submarine
Company because you do not mean to buy them,
what are you going to give them? — We are
to have a cerlain proportion of the receipts and
to be at the expense of the land line as a matter
of course, and they are to be at the expense of the
cables, we recouping them a certain proportion of
that expense.
2003. You said that submarine property
is precarious, is not the submarine telegraph
also in profit by far the most valuable in point
om otte Aar, og De gav 20 Aars Kjøb af det
daværende Udbytte af disse Traade? — Det nu
værende Udbytte.
1995. De anser det for en daarlig Handel, og
jeg tør sige. De har Ret? — Jeg sagde ikke, at
det var en daarlig Handel.
1996. Jeg ønsker at vide, dersom det er
Umagen værd at give 20 Aars Kjøb for en otte
Aars Forpagtuing, hvorfor De da siger, at De
ikke kan give mere end 10 Aars Kjøb for en 30
Aars Koncession? — Jeg har sagt Dem Granden,
det er submarin Eiendoms mere prekaire Beskaf
fenhed.
1997. Husker De Snøstormen i England,
som for to å tre Aar siden ødelagde alle Tele
grafer i England? — Ja.
1998. Jeg ønsker at vide, om dette ikke er
idetmindste ligesaa prekairt som Noget, der er
hændt den submarine Kabel; jeg taler ikke om
den atlantiske Kabel, men om den submarine
Kabel mellem England ogFrankrige eller mellom
England og Holland? — Bekostningen af en ny
Kabel faldt ikke pag Telegrafkompagnierne.
1999. Hvad kostede den? — Jeg tror, at
Electric Telegraph < 0. beregnede Omkostningerne
til 10,000 Lstn
2000. For denne ene Snestorm? — Ja.
2001. De siger, saavidt jeg forstaar, at
dette ikke er prekair Eiendom? — Den er for
saavidt prekair, men Risikoen er meget mindre end
ved den submarine Kabel; jeg antager, at dersom
Kablen blev brudt, kunde den ikke reddes; med
70,000 Lsir. vilde den ikke kunne erstattes.
2002. Jeg forstaar, at De ikke ér kommen
til noget Overslag om disse Ting med Submarine
Co., fordi De ikke har isinde at kjøbe dem.
Hvad har De isinde at give dem? — Vi skulle
have en vis Andel af Indtcegterne og overtage Ud
gifterne ved Landlinien som en Selvfølge, og Kom
pagniet skal bære Udgifterne ved Kablerne, idet vi
godtgjøre dem en vis Del af disse Udgifter.
2003. De sagde, at submarin Eiendom er
prekair; er ikke den submarine Telegraf ogsaa
med Hensyn til Fordel den allerværdifuldeste,
174 [Bil. XIX.
BILAG.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
