¹ Published in New York Times, October 5, 1927.

² Union of South Africa, French Equatorial Africa and other colonies, French West Africa, Portuguese West Africa, Portuguese East Africa and the Portuguese Asiatic possessions,Germany, Argentine Republic, Commonwealth of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia,Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Republic of Colombia, Spanish Colony of the Gulf of Guinea, Belgian Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curacao, Cyrenaica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Republic of El Salvador, Eritrea, Spain, Estonia, United States of America, Finland, France, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Republic of Haiti, Republic of Honduras, Hungary, British India, Dutch East Indies, French Indo-China, Irish Free State,Italy, Japan, Chosen, Taiwan, Japanese Sakhalin, the Leased Territory of Kwantung and the South Sea Islands under Japanese Mandate, Republic of Liberia, Madagascar, Morocco(with the exception of the Spanish Zone), Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, New Zealand,Republic of Panama, Paraguay, the Netherlands, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rumania,Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Siam, Italian Somaliland, Sweden, Switzerland,Surinam, Territories of Syria and The Lebanon, Republic of San Marino, Czechoslovakia,Tripolitania, Tunis, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Of these Liberia, Persia and Rumania signed ad referendum. In signing the general regulations, Poland made a reservation concerning paragraph 4 of Article 5 in the terms found in the procbs verbal of the eighth plenary session, Nov. 22.A statement was inserted in the prochs verbal of the eighth plenary session, Nov. 22, to the effect that the list of names appearing in the preamble as those of the contracting governments should not affect the question of votes in the next Conference.The convention and regulations were sent to the Senate by the President on December 12,1927, and the injunction of secrecy removed from the document on December 17. An English translation of the convention and regulations has been published as Senate Document,Executive B, 70th Congress, 1st Session. That document, hereinafter referred to as Executive B, also contains English translations of the proems verbaux of the plenary sessions.

³ All of the countries listed in note two except the United States, Canada and Honduras.Google Scholar

⁴ Procès verbal of ninth plenary session, Nov. 25, 1927; Executive B, p. 288.

⁵ Of course, conventions not in this series have contained provisions bearing upon radio,or even, as in the case of the draft prepared by the Commission of Jurists in 1922, have been devoted to a particular phase of radio. The various earlier provisions of multilateral treaties bearing upon radio are to be found conveniently listed in The Law of Radio Communication by Stephen Davis, pp. 175-185. In addition to those treaties which have radio as their special subject matter, Judge Davis mentions the Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in War on Land (1907), the Convention for the Adaptation to Naval War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention (1907), the Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (1907), the unratified Declaration of London (1909), the Convention for the Safety of lifeat Sea (1914), the resolution on Radio Stations in China passed by the Limitation of Armament Conference of Washington (1922), and the draft prepared by the Commission of Jurists (1922). To this list should be added the Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation (1919).

⁶ U. S. Treaty Series No. 568; Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols, etc., Vol. I l l , p. 2889.

⁷ U. S. Treaty Series No. 581; Malloy, Vol. III , p. 3048.

⁸ Procks verbal of the opening session; Executive B, p. 100.

⁹ Procks verbal of the opening session; Executive B, p. 100.

¹⁰ Frocks verbal of the third plenary session; Executive B, p.153.

¹¹ The EU-F-GB-I (United States, France, Great Britain, Italy) Radio Protocol of Aug.25, 1919. This document was published by the United States Navy Department in 1920.

¹² Provided for by an act dated Dec. 17, 1919, 41 Stat., Vol. I, p. 367.

¹³ plenary session, the Paris Conference passed the following resolution: “The conference expresses the opinion that, after the Radiotelegraph Conference of Washington, the contracting governments should consider the best way of modifying the St. Petersburg Convention, and of introducing into it the provisions of the Radiotelegraph Convention by a congress possessing the necessary powers. It expresses the hope that the Washington Conference may be able to make a similar recommendation.”At the eighth plenary session, Nov. 22, the following resolution passed by the Convention Committee on Nov. 19 was adopted: “The International Radiotelegraph Conference of Washington expresses the desire that the contracting governments shall examine the possibility of combining the International Radiotelegraph Convention witji the International Telegraph Convention, and that,eventually, they shall take the necessary steps for this purpose.” Executive B, p. 271. e

¹⁴ Proehs verbal of the opening session; Executive B,p. 77-118.

¹⁵ Procbs verbal of the first plenary session; Executive B,p. 119-128.

¹⁶ Procis verbal of first meeting of Convention Committee, Oct. 7.

¹⁷ Prods verbal of first plenary session, Oct. 5.

¹⁸ Procbs verbal of second plenary session; Executive B, p. 136.

¹⁹ See page 38 infra.

²⁰ Procte verbal of first meeting of Convention Committee, Oct. 5.

²¹ To, Mr. Pierart , of Belgium, chairman of the Drafting Committee, more than to any other single individual, belongs the credit for the final form of the convention and regulations.Google Scholar

²² See the notes exchanged between the United States and France prior to the Paris Conference; Dept, of State press release Sept. 28, 1927, XJ. S. Daily, Sept. 29, 1927.

²³ The Management Regulations were to be signed by the operating agencies, whether government administrations or private companies. A clear and concise statement of the United States position was printed in French and Spanish, as well as English, and distributed prior to the conference. See Projet de Convention BadioUectrique Internationale et de Rbglerrients Couvemementcmx Annexis, and Proyecto de Convend6n International de Radio y Reglamentaciones de Gobiemo Anexas (Government Printing Office, 1927).

²⁴ Procis vetbal of the first meeting of the Convention Committee.

²⁵ At the sixth meeting of the Subcommittee of the Convention Committee.

²⁶ At a joint meeting of the General Regulations, Mobile Services, Point-to-Point Services,and Technical Committees called for that purpose; see procbs verbal of that session.

²⁷ In the prochs verbal of the seventh plenary session, Nov. 19, there was inserted a statement by the American delegation that references in the convention or general regulations to provisions of the supplementary regulations should not be binding upon the United States.Executive B, p.240.

²⁸ At the second plenary session, Oct. 25, Germany was granted the right to cast six votes.Executive B, p. 136.

²⁹ Article 22.

³⁰ Proposal No. 105a.

³¹ Proposals Nos. 100, 101, 138-140.

³² Compare the list of signatories given in footnote 2.

³³ Procks verbal of meeting of Subcommittee on Signatures, Nov. 15.

³⁴ Prods verbal of seventh plenary session, Nov. 19; Executive B, p. 235.

³⁵ Great Britain.

³⁶ As has been stated, the conference took the London Convention and Regulations as the basis for its labors. Consequently, the articles coming from the various committees bore numbers corresponding to those in the London documents. This numbering was retained by the plenary session, the Berne Bureau being charged with renumbering the articles and writing titles. (See prods verbal of ninth plenary session, Nov. 25; Executive B, p.279.)In the succeeding pages the numbers assigned to the articles are those which will be given by the Berne Bureau; the numbers in parentheses are those designating the articles in the convention and regulations as signed.

³⁷ Over the objection of the United States, this paragraph as reported out of the Convention Committee imposed upon the contracting parties a similar obligation with regard to “individual and private enterprises authorized to establish and operate radio communication stations whether or not open to the international service of public correspondence.” Such a provision would have made the convention and regulations applicable to all radio communication stations, regardless of the service in which they were engaged. The conference at the second plenary session, Oct. 25, changed the paragraph into its present form; but in order to protect international communications from interference set up by stations engaged in national service, the term international service was extended to include such interference.Executive B, p. 137.

³⁸ The Convention Committee at its second meeting, Oct. 11, adopted a fourth paragraph in which the contracting governments agreed to exchange traffic with properly authorized private enterprises. Upon further consideration in the Subcommittee of the Convention Committee, the government administrations represented were of the opinion that the paragraph lacked mutuality; and an amended paragraph was suggested to the effect that all of the contracting parties would refuse to exchange traffic with a private enterprise that declined to deal with a government administration for the sole reason that the latter was an administration. This new provision was believed by the United States and other countries in which radio communication is conducted by private enterprises to deal too severely with such an offending company. It was finally decided to eliminate the paragraph, a decision which was reached the more readily because it was believed that no administration or private enterprise respectively would give as the sole reason for refusing to deal with a private enterprise or administration the private or public character of the latter. (Sixth session of the Subcommittee of the Convention Committee, Oct. 25.)

³⁹ Article 1. The provisions relating to interference and distress had a wider scope. See Article 15.

⁴⁰ The debate on this article revealed the difference between the position of the United States and that of a number of European countries in the matter of licensing of receiving sets. The United States Government has never attempted to require any such license, and the American delegation was continually on the alert to prevent the insertion of any provision in the convention or the regulations which would compel it to do so.

⁴¹ In accordance with a statement made by the American delegation at the seventh plenary session, reference in the convention to articles in the supplementary regulations is not binding upon the United States. Executive B, p. 240.

⁴² The conference at the eighth plenary session, Nov. 22, accepted the invitation of the Spanish Government to hold the next conference in Madrid, and set the date for 1932.Executive B, p. 274.

⁴³ At the sixth plenary session, Nov. 18, the Netherlands delegation announced that the first meeting of the committee would be at The Hague. Executive B, p. 229.

⁴⁴ Opposition to compulsory arbitration was led by Great Britain and Japan. A British motion to eliminate the compulsory feature was defeated 43 to 7, and the article with the provision for compulsory arbitration was adopted, 38 to 10. See procbs verbal of seventh plenary session, Nov. 19; Executive B, pp. 237, 238.

⁴⁵ Report of the chairman of the Committee on the International Code of Signals to the President of the International Radiotelegraph Conference, November 17,1927.