CO885-(15-16) — Page 439

26462

No. 39.

(GENERAL.)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

EFTEC.O.8

.885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

1

MY LORD,

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Interchange of messages sent by Marconi Wireless Telegraphy with other systems.

Royal Courts of Justice,

July 19, 1906. WE were honoured by your Lordship's commands signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 12th June last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to ask our opinion upon a question arising in connection with the proposed grant of wireless telegraph licences in the Colonies.

That previously to the passing of the Wireless Telegraphy Act the Postmaster- General possessed the monopoly of telegrams sent by wireless telegraphy so far as regarded communications entirely within the United Kingdom and territorial waters. But that telegrams sent to or from any place beyond the territorial waters were excepted from his monopoly by the operation of Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1864.

That by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, it was made illegal to establish any wireless telegraph station, or instal or work any apparatus for wireless tele- graphy in any place in the British Isles or on any British ship in the territorial

waters.

That speaking broadly it was also illegal to instal a wireless telegraph station in any of the Colonies.

That the Colonial legislation was not uniform in tenor, but that its general effect was to prohibit any wireless telegraphic communication to or from the Colonies without the licence of the Colonial Government.

That the introduction of wireless telegraphy for practical purposes was, as was well known, due to Mr. Marconi, and that the two companies bearing his name, the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company and the Marconi International Marine Com- munication Company, had, before the passing of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, established numerous stations on the shores of the United Kingdom, from which they conducted communications with passing ships.

That these stations being private undertakings, and, so far as they communi- cated outside the territorial waters, not under any control from the Imperial Govern- ment, the Marconi Companies were free to refuse to communicate with any system of wireless telegraphy other than their own, and that they have, in fact, always refused to hold such communications. That other systems, however, were gradually developed, and that in this country at least the Marconi Companies have not chal- lenged any of such systems on the ground of infringement of their patent rights. That there were at present, in addition to the Marconi systems, systems bearing the names Fessenden, Lodge-Muirhead, de Forest, Telefunken, and possibly others.

That in the autumn of 1903 a preliminary Conference on wireless telegraphy was convened at Berlin at the instance of the German Government, one main object of the Conference being to establish the rule that there should be communication between all wireless stations established on shore and passing ships whatever system the apparatus might belong to. That the result of the Conference was to lay down, as a proposal for consideration at a future Convention, that shore stations and ships at sea should be bound to receive and transmit telegrams reciprocally without distinction as to the system of wireless telegram employed. That the British delegates did not sign the Protocol as, at that time, there was no effective control over wireless telegraphy in this country, but that they undertook to submit the proposal to the Government. That while the Bill for the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, was in progress, negotiations took place between the Postmaster-General and the Marconi Companies which resulted in certain heads of agreement, dated the 11th day of August, 1904. That amongst the subjects discussed was the obliga- tion to exchange telegrams with other systems on the basis of the Berlin Conference, the Marconi Companies still showing great reluctance to fall in with this suggestion. That in the result Article 10 of the Heads of Agreement was settled. That the Article ran as follows:-

"In the event of His Majesty's Government adhering, for the United Kingdom, to a convention based substantially on the stipulations contained in the Protocol

25 Wt 1649 8,08 D&S

5 23392

Į