of transit except when the Radio Regulations expressly stipulate that such stations shall be considered as offices of origin or of destination." Although it is recognized that, in the discussion of the Articles of the Telegraph Convention and the Regulations mentioned in the above quoted articles, it would be very desirable to consider their effect on communication by radio, I desire to make it clear that I understand that it is not contemplated that changes in the Regulations annexed to the Radiotelegraph Convention will be brought up for discussion at the Paris Conference. The transmitting regulations for radio appear to be a subject of especial interest to the representatives of the Governments who will participate in the Washington Conference. In the interest of uniformity it is suggested that the Telegraph Conference at Paris might desire to consider communication by radio to the extent that any transmitting regulations for wire should be so framed as not to preclude the possibility of their adoption by the Washington Conference and thus being made applicable to radio should the Radiotelegraph Conference deem it desirable to do so. Respecting the fourth proposal to discuss at the Paris Conference the use of the word "fil" on European telegrams when the sender does not wish the message forwarded by wireless, I am of the opinion that this matter is a proper subject for consideration at the Paris Conference and, if the action taken on the subject is limited to the European regime, it would not be of direct concern to the United States. In regard to the fifth proposal that the Conference at Paris shall consider the drafting of regulations respecting telegrams without address sent by radio, I desire to make it clear that, if this statement refers to the broadcasting of information by radio, I am of the opinion that the regulation of this new means of communication is purely a radio matter with which it would seem that a telegraph conference should not properly concern itself. The new problems raised by this new means of communication seem to be closely related to the use of radio and I believe it would be more appropriate to consider this subject at the Washington Conference. Respecting your inquiry whether the United States would agree to the postponement of the Radiotelegraph Conference until the spring of 1926, I am pleased to state that this Government will be happy to make the necessary arrangements to hold the International Radiotelegraph Conference at Washington in the spring of 1926, and formal invitations for this Conference will be issued at an early date.13 13 Issued on Aug. 18, 1925; see telegram No. 263, Aug. 18, to the Ambassador in Great Britain, p. 297. The agenda for the Washington Conference is being studied and, although I cannot at this time furnish you a detailed statement of the subjects that I believe should be considered at the Conference, it is believed that, in addition to the revision of the present Convention and Regulations, the Conference should consider the transmission by radiotelegraph of communications between fixed points, the broadcasting of communications, and communications by radiotelephony, and other related subjects which the developments of the art since 1912 make it advisable to consider. In view of the considerations set forth in this note, I confidently encourage the hope that you will find it possible at an early date to assure me that, as I have suggested above, questions relating to radio will not be considered at the Paris Conference so that I may be in a position promptly to inform the interested agencies of this Government with a view to making the necessary arrangements looking to the participation of the United States in the Conference at Paris. Accept [etc.] FRANK B. KELLOGG 574.D3/173 The Acting Secretary of State to the French Ambassador (Daeschner) WASHINGTON, August 17, 1925. EXCELLENCY: Referring to Mr. Jusserand's note dated January 15, 1925, inviting this Government to take part in the International Telegraph Conference at Paris, and to your note dated March 23, 1925,14 stating that the date of the Conference had been postponed until September 1, 1925, I have the honor to state that this Government accepts the kind invitation of the French Government and the following delegates and technical advisers have been appointed to attend the conference: Honorable J. Beaver White of Pennsylvania-Delegate and Honorable Wallace H. White, Jr., Member of Congress from Major General Charles McK. Saltzman, Chief of the Signal Major Joseph O. Mauborgne, United States Army,-Secretary Mr. William D. Terrell, Chief Supervisor of Radio of the United Lieutenant Commander Jules James, Assistant Naval Attaché, "Not printed. 75289-40-27 Lieutenant E. M. Webster, United States Coast Guard, Treasury Mr. R. H. Redmond, European Radio Supervisor, United States With the exception of Mr. Kelly, Lieutenant Commander James, and Mr. Redmond, the above named representatives will sail from New York on the Steamship America on August 19, 1925, and it is expected that they will arrive at Cherbourg on August 28, next. In this connection I venture to call your Excellency's attention to the fact that a reply has not as yet been received to Mr. Kellogg's note dated July 17, 1925, regarding the subjects to be considered at the International Telegraph Conference. Accept [etc.] JOSEPH C. GREW 574.D3/185 The French Ambassador (Daeschner) to the Secretary of State [Translation 15] WASHINGTON, August 23, 1925. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: In your note of July 17 last you were pleased to convey to me some observations which it appeared should be made by the American administration on the list of questions which I had the honor to set forth as constituting the program of the International Telegraph Conference to be held at Paris on September 1, 1925. In reply, I have been instructed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to inform Your Excellency that the sole program of the Paris Conference is to consider additions and amendments which the telegraphic office desires to have made in the service regulations and rates in force. There is no question whatsoever of revising or amending the St. Petersburg Convention. The French propositions are confined strictly to that program which forms the subject of Circular No. 766 of the International Bureau of Berne. If certain offices have exceeded those limits, the French Government has no means to prevent them from offering their propositions. It could do no more than point out, while the conference is in session, the limits of the program as outlined and propose, if occasion should arise, that they be referred to the next Radiotelegraph Conference. As to the Radiotelegraph Conference, the Government of the Republic doubts if it may be called with advantage before the year 1927. The Radiotelegraph Conference will have to examine the propositions to amend or revise the London Convention, not only 15 Supplied by the editor. those coming from the American Government but also those which all the adhering powers to the Union have the right to offer. Each office must be allowed sufficient time to prepare these propositions in order that they may be assembled at the Berne office and submitted to all the offices. Your Excellency will certainly admit that this procedure cannot but require much time. Accept [etc.] E. DAESCHNER [For the proceedings of the Conference see, Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Paris, 1925 (Berne, Bureau International de l'Union Télégraphique, 1925).] EXTENSION OF INVITATIONS TO THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL RADIOTELEGRAPH CONFERENCE AT WASHINGTON IN 1927 16 574.D7/82: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) WASHINGTON, August 18, 1925-4 p. m. 263. This Government is making arrangements to hold Radiotelegraph Conference in Washington in accordance provision made in Act of Congress approved March 4, 1925.17 You are accordingly instructed to extend an invitation to the Government to which you are accredited, reading in substance as follows: Article XI of the Convention signed at London on July 5, 1912,18 provides that each conference shall fix the time and place of the next meeting. It will be recalled that at the close of the Radiotelegraph Conference held in London in July, 1912, the delegates that represented the United States invited the governments to hold the next radiotelegraph conference at Washington. The invitation of the United States was accepted and it was agreed that the next conference should take place at Washington in 1917. Later proposals were made with a view to holding a joint conference of parties to the Telegraph Convention and parties to the Radiotelegraph Convention and a draft for a universal communications union was prepared and circulated. As unanimity could not be obtained for these proposals, the 16 The First International Radiotelegraph Conference met at Berlin in 1906; see Foreign Relations, 1912, pp. 444 ff., and Documents de la Conférence Radiotélégraphique Internationale de Berlin, 1906, Publiés par le Département des Posts de l'Empire d'Allemagne (Berlin, 1906). The Second Conference met at London in 1912; see Foreign Relations, 1913, pp. 1375 ff. and Documents de la Conférence Radiotélégraphique Internationale de Londres (Berne, Bureau International de l'Union Télégraphique, 1913). 17 43 Stat. 1340. “Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1375. French Government has proceeded with arrangements to hold the Telegraph Conference at Paris beginning September 1, 1925.19 Accordingly the United States has taken the necessary steps for holding the Radiotelegraph Conference and I hereby, pursuant to instructions of my Government, have the honor to extend to you, as one of the parties to the Radiotelegraph Convention, a courteous invitation to participate in a radiotelegraph conference to be held in the spring of 1926 at Washington, the exact date for the holding of the conference to be communicated to you later. As regards the subjects to be considered at the conference at Washington, I am instructed to refer to the fact that the provisions of the Radiotelegraph Convention signed at London deal with communication between ships and between ship and shore and do not cover many uses of radio which have been developed since 1912. Furthermore, many of the provisions of the 1912 Convention with respect to communication between ships and between ship and shore are not in general practice followed to a considerable extent. In the circumstances I am instructed to state that the Government of the United States believes that at the forthcoming conference to be held at Washington the following subjects should be taken up for consideration: 1. Revision of the Convention and Regulations signed at London July 5, 1912. 2. Preparation of new articles and modification of present articles of convention and regulations so that they will be applicable to and regulate (a) Communication by radio between fixed points; (b) Radiotelegraph broadcasting, including press messages; (c) Radio telephony, including broadcasting; (d) Allocation of frequencies to classes of service, such as fixed stations, mobile stations, broadcasting stations, etc. (e) Elimination of interference as far as practicable. (f) Distress messages so as to take cognizance of increased uses and classes of service. (g) Radio aids to navigation. (h) All other international uses of radio. A more complete program amplifying the statements above made will be forwarded by my Government as soon as possible for your consideration and an expression of your views. [Here follow instructions to repeat invitation to the American missions in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Free City of Danzig, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.] 20 19 See ante, p. 287. 20 By a telegram dated August 27, the Ambassador was instructed to repeat the invitation to Albania. The invitation was also sent as a circular telegram on August 18 to the American missions in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The invitation was extended pro forma to all countries (except Ecuador and Russia) which were then, or before the Conference convened, parties to the |