Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, General, Volume I

574.G1/795

The Secretary of State to the Chairman of the American Delegation (Sykes)

Washington, August 13, 1932.

Sir: Your credentials as Chairman of the American delegation² to the International Radio Conference and as Chairman of the American representatives to participate in the International Telegraph Conference, both of which conferences are to convene at Madrid, Spain, on September 3, 1932, have already been delivered to you.

In all matters not covered specifically by these instructions, the delegation should be guided by the proposals submitted by the Government of the United States for consideration by the conference.³

One of the major problems which will confront the two conferences is that of a possible amalgamation of the radio and telegraph conventions. The International Telegraph Conference at Paris in 1925 adopted a resolution looking towards such an amalgamation.⁴ The International Radio Conference at Washington in 1927 adopted a somewhat similar resolution which envisaged a possible eventual amalgamation of the two conventions.⁵ The position of the United States with respect to the proposed amalgamation is somewhat peculiar in that this Government is a party to the International Radio Convention but is not a party to the International Telegraph Convention.

An unofficial draft of a text of a proposed combined convention was published in the Journal Télégraphique for June, 1930.⁶ That draft was made the basis for the submission of proposals on the subject of a combined convention for the Madrid Conference. The committees appointed by the Department of State to do the preliminary work in preparation for the Conference studied whether this Government could sign or adhere to a combined communication convention, and if so, upon what conditions. As a result of the deliberations of those committees, the United States submitted proposals for such a convention accompanied by a general statement setting forth clearly the conditions upon which American participation in it would be possible.

The general statement referred to was based upon experience at other radio Conferences. At the International Radio Conference of Washington there developed a distinct divergence of views as to the proper scope of the convention and regulations as between Governments owning and operating communication facilities on the one hand and Governments within whose territories such facilities were privately owned and operated on the other. Acceptance of the convention by both groups of Governments was made possible through the device of setting up a Convention stating only matters of general principle, General Regulations containing matters of less fundamental importance but of a public character properly permitting of Government regulation, and Supplementary Regulations containing matters pertaining to operation and management. Governments operating communication facilities accepted all three documents while those, as the United States, in whose territories communication facilities were privately owned and operated, accepted only the first two.

It is believed that the device adopted at Washington affords the most satisfactory basis for a combined convention. If the Madrid conferences decide to draft a combined convention, the delegation should make every possible effort to have the convention and regulations follow the Washington plan. The United States can accept a combined convention only if it is drafted in such a manner as to make it possible for the Government to assume obligations with respect to matters of a public and Governmental character without intruding into the fields of operation and management which have been left to private operating companies.

One of the questions which will confront the conference at the outset will be that of voting. While the matter of voting at international radio conferences has had no great significance in practice, it has been the occasion of long drawn out discussions in previous conferences. After lengthy debate at the International Radio Conference of London in 1912 a plan of plural voting for certain countries was adopted. That plan was incorporated in Article 12 of the International Radio Convention of 1912,⁷ copies of which have been furnished you. The Washington Conference in 1927 was unable to agree to a continuation of this plan but could find no acceptable substitute for it. The radio convention as drafted by that conference contains no mention of voting. The United States was charged with the task of attempting to obtain an agreement on the question before the Madrid Conference should convene. This Government circulated to other interested Governments for their approval a plan providing for a single vote for each independent Government party to the convention and including within that term the British Dominions and India. There is attached as Annex 1⁸ a copy of an instruction setting out the exact terms of the proposal made by this Government. While a large majority of the Governments replying to the suggestion were in favor of it, unfortunately unanimity was not obtained. There are attached as Annex 2⁸ copies of the replies of the various Governments as well as a table showing the replies which have been made to the proposal. Annex 3⁸ contains a list of countries which have ratified or adhered to the Washington Convention.

While it is believed that the proposal outlined is fair to all Governments concerned and offers the best opportunity for an agreement on the subject of voting, this Government does not desire to insist upon it if it becomes apparent that the plan will not be accepted by the Conference and that another plan might be adopted. Any plan which will give to the United States as many votes as any other country will probably be acceptable to this Government.⁹

Another question which will confront the Conference at the outset is that of an official language. No radio convention, and it is believed no telegraph convention, has contained any provision on the subject. French was used as the language of the earlier radio and telegraph conferences; but with the growth of the use of English as an official language of international conferences, a demand has steadily arisen for the use of English as an official language at radio conferences. While the Washington conference of 1927 did not adopt English as an official language, it did adopt a provision which permitted the free use of English during the conference. That provision is contained in Article 5 of the internal regulations of the conference and will be found at page 113 of the document entitled Executive B, 70th Congress, 1st Session, a copy of which has already been given you. At the two meetings of the International Technical Consulting Committee on Radio Communication held at The Hague in 1929 and at Copenhagen in 1931, provisions likewise were adopted which permitted the use of English during the meetings.¹¹

Article 42 of the draft¹² used as the basis for proposals for a combined convention provides that the documents of the conference shall be drawn up in French. This Government is strongly opposed to the adoption of any such convention provision. It is believed that English should be adopted as an official language. Even should English not be adopted as an official language by the Madrid Conference, the door should not be closed against its possible future adoption as an official language. The delegation should endeavor to procure the insertion in the internal regulations of the conference of a provision making English an official language on the same footing with French for all purposes. If that cannot be done the minimum should be provision for a free use of English upon condition of its being translated into French together with provision for translation from French into English. The delegation should most earnestly oppose the insertion in the convention itself of any provision which would foreclose the use of English in connection with future international conferences or in connection with the work of the International Bureau of the Telegraph Union.

Probably the most important technical problem which will confront the radio conference is that of the table allocating frequencies to services. The Department desires the delegation to have the freedom necessary for participation in such compromises as may be necessary to enable the deliberations with respect to the allocation of frequencies to be brought to a successful conclusion. In general, where there are conflicting interests of major importance in the United States, the delegation should endeavor to have left open for regional agreement in North America at least those parts of the spectrum where inter-continental interference should not result from the use of the same frequencies by different services in different parts of the world.

In view of the important contributions which radio amateurs have made in the advancement of radio, and of the present congestion in the amateur bands, the delegation should vigorously oppose all attempts further to restrict the bands allocated for use by amateurs. The delegation should exert every effort to leave the amateur bands unchanged. Should it prove to be impossible to reach an agreement on the allocation table without making changes in the amateur assignments, the delegation should telegraph the Department for its approval before agreeing to any such changes.

The International Radio Convention of 1927 authorized the creation of an International Technical Consulting Committee on Radio Communication. The delegation of the United States at the 1927 Conference opposed the creation of the Committee; and this Government has consistently opposed all efforts to expand its functions. The Madrid Conference will be confronted with proposals to extend the activities of the Committee and to make it a continuing body. Such proposals should be vigorously opposed by the delegation. This Government would prefer to have the Committee abolished, although it will have no serious objection to the continuation of the Committee with approximately the same composition and functions as at present.

A conference of experts on aeronautical radio was held in Paris, July 5–8, 1932, under the auspices of the International Commission for Air Navigation. There is appended as Annex 4,¹³ for the information of the delegation, a copy of the report made by Mr. John J. Ide, the American observer at the meeting.

It is possible that an effort may be made to insert in the convention or regulations drafted by the Conference, provisions looking toward the establishment of a censorship of messages, particularly of press messages. This Government is strongly opposed to any such provisions. The delegation should vigorously combat every proposal which is designed to give the sanction of the convention or regulations to the establishment of a censorship of messages.

The International Telegraph Conference will concern itself largely with matters considered by this Government to be matters of operation and management. The provisions drafted by that Conference should almost in their entirety be inserted in service regulations to which this Government will not be a party. Proposals have been made on two points, however, which directly affect the users of communication facilities in the United States. The first of these pertains to the question of code language. You have been furnished with a copy of the documents¹⁴ containing the material assembled by the Department on this point in preparation for the International Telegraph Conference of Brussels in 1928, and also with a copy of the report of the American delegation to that conference.¹⁵ The Department has received a large number of letters from American users of communication facilities protesting against any changes in the code language provisions which might result in an increase in rates. Those letters indicate that a very substantial body of users of communication facilities in the United States favor the retention of the status quo with respect to code language.

Several of the larger American communication companies jointly prepared proposals based on the telegraph service regulations, which were submitted through the Department of State. Those proposals contain no provision for significant changes in the rules governing the composition of code language. As the companies proposed changes where they believed changes to be desirable, it is apparent that they did not contemplate any important changes in the composition of code words or in the rules governing code language messages. In view of the expressed attitude of the companies and of a group of the users of communication facilities, the delegation should support the retention of the present code language provisions without any changes which might operate to increase cable charges.

The second proposal before the International Telegraph Conference referred to above is one to fix a minimum number of words for messages of various categories. You will be given an analysis of the number of words in a typical group of telegrams sent by various users in the United States. Fixing a minimum number of words higher than that in the present practice would operate to increase cable charges for messages which otherwise would contain a smaller number of words. The Department has received no evidence to indicate that the regulations governing international messages should be changed to provide for a minimum number of words in telegrams in the international service. In the absence of a showing of a real need for the establishment of a minimum higher than that now established by practice, the delegation should support the present situation. Should such a need be shown, the delegation should telegraph the Department for further instructions. The request for instructions should indicate the recommendation of the delegation upon the basis of the showing made.

In the event the radio and telegraph conferences merge their activities at Madrid, it may be appropriate for the representatives of this Government officially to participate in the discussion of the questions of code language and minimum word count for telegrams. If the sessions of the two conferences are held separately, the fact that this Government is not a party to the telegraph convention will result in the inability of the representatives officially to participate in the proceedings of the committees considering these subjects.¹⁶ It is believed, however, that the representatives unofficially will be able to exert influence which may affect the conclusions adopted by the committees.

Very truly yours,

For the Secretary of State:

W. R. Castle, Jr.

Under Secretary

2. The members of the American delegation were: Eugene O. Sykes, Chairman, Acting Chairman of the Federal Radio Commission; Charles B. Joliffe, Chief Engineer of the Federal Radio Commission; Walter Lichtenstein, Executive Secretary of the First National Bank of Chicago; Irvin Stewart of the Department of State.
3. See Propositions pour la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Madrid, 1932 (Berne, Bureau International de l’Union Télégraphique, 1931), pp. 19–20.
4. See “Summary of Various Resolutions Passed by the Paris Conference, 1925” in International Telegraph Convention of Saint-Petersburg (London, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1926), p. 136.
5. See S. Ex. Doc. B, 70th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 271–272.
6. Journal Télégraphique (Berne, Bureau International de l’Union Télégraphique), vol. liv, juin 1930, pp. 117 ff.
7. Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1375.
8. Not printed.
8. Not printed.
8. Not printed.
9. For Conference action upon this subject and comment by Chairman of the American Delegation, see Report to the Secretary of State by the Chairman of the American Delegation, With Appended Documents, pp. 9, 15–17.
11. For the 1929 understanding, see footnote on p. 67 of the Report of the Delegation of the United States of America and Appended Documents to the International Technical Consulting Committee on Radio Communications (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1930). For the 1931 provision, see Article 3 of “Règlement Intèrieur de la deuxième rèunion du C. C. I. R.” in Documents du Comité Consultatif International Technique des Communications Radioélectriques Deuxième Réunion Copenhague, mai–juin 1931 (Berne, Bureau International de l’Union Télégraphique, 1931), p. 41.
12. See Journal Télégraphique, vol. liv, juin 1930, p. 124.
13. Not printed.
14. Documents not printed.
15. Report of the American Delegation to the International Telegraph Conference of Brussels, September 10–22, 1928, accompanied by a translation of documents of the Conference as published by the International Office of the Telegraph Union and other related documents (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1929).
16. Some sessions were joint meetings; others were separate. American delegates participated in the plenary sessions, as well as the committee meetings, of both the Radio and the Telegraph Conferences.