be regarded as the normal route for "unordered" telegrams from Europe, which, indeed, its directness and shortness as compared with that via New York manifestly make it. Telegrams ordered via the United States cables would, however, be forwarded freely by those cables. In order to close the matter, I therefore have the honour to suggest that the British and United States cable companies should be allowed to come to a direct agreement on this basis with regard to the Azores traffic, untrammelled by administrative restrictions on either side. On the conclusion of such an agreement and its confirmation by the issue of landing licences for the Azores cables in the United States, and on the full and immediate renunciation of the exclusive rights of the All-America Company in Colombia, His Majesty's Government will have much pleasure in withdrawing their opposition to the applications of the Western Union and Commercial Cable companies at the Azores.

5. The above distribution of traffic complies with those provisions of the Telegraph Convention which you have quoted. I have, however, felt bound to inform the Portuguese Government that the United States cannot properly claim the benefit of those particular provisions, seeing that the United States Government have expressly declared their inability to grant their benefit to the other powers signatory to the convention.

I have [etc.]

CURZON OF KEDLESTON

811.7353b W 52/41

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Harvey)

No. 746

WASHINGTON, December 6, 1922. SIR: The Department has received your despatch No. 1631 of August 19, 1922, transmitting a copy of the Embassy's note of July 24, 1922, to the Foreign Office and of a reply from the Foreign Office dated August 18, 1922, relating to the opposition of the British Government to the applications of the Western Union Telegraph Company and the Commercial Cable Company to the Portuguese Government for concessions authorizing them to land and operate cables at the Azores.

The Department desires that you address a further communication to the Foreign Office reading substantially as follows:

Referring to the note No. A-5216/116/45, which was addressed to the Embassy by Sir William Tyrrell on August 18, 1922, relative to

'Note based upon these instructions was addressed to the British Foreign Office on Dec. 21. The bracketed dates inserted throughout the text here printed are taken from copy of the note which was transmitted to the Department by the Chargé in his despatch no. 1926, Dec. 29 (file no. 811.7353b/143).

the opposition of His Majesty's Government to the granting by the Portuguese Government of concessions to the Western Union Telegraph Company and the Commercial Cable Company, authorizing them to land and operate submarine cables at the Azores, I have the honor to state that I promptly forwarded a copy of the communication to my Government and am now in receipt of instructions to address a further communication to His Majesty's Government in regard to the matter.

As the Western Union Telegraph Company has now been authorized to land and operate its cable at Miami Beach, Florida, connecting the United States with Brazil by way of Barbados, the President having granted a license to the Company on August 24, 1922, it would seem that no useful purpose would be served by a further discussion of the matter of the delay in granting that license were it not that the Foreign Office note of August 18, 1922, deals almost entirely with that subject and indicates that, notwithstanding that the attitude of the Government of the United States with respect to the landing and operation of cables on the shores of the United States and the delay in granting a license to the Western Union Telegraph Company to land a cable at Miami Beach has been fully explained in previous communications, there is a misunderstanding on the part of His Majesty's Government in regard to these matters. With a view to removing this misunderstanding I am directed to inform you with regard to the statement in the first paragraph of the Foreign Office note that His Majesty's Government had never received from the Government of the United States a copy of the conditions on which the United States Government was willing to grant a license for the landing at Miami Beach, although the line of cables terminating at Miami is partially owned by a British company, that the Western Union Telegraph Company, the applicant for the license, was fully informed concerning those conditions. The Government of the United States was not in communication with the Western Telegraph Company regarding the matter but had reason to believe that the Western Union Telegraph Company kept the Western Telegraph Company fully informed of the conditions on which the United States was willing to grant the license and of the developments in the matter.

As bearing on this phase of the question under discussion, reference may be made to the proposals which were communicated on February [21 and February 23], 1921, (here insert date of your communications transmitting the substance of Department's telegrams No. 103 [102] of February 19, 9 P. M., and No. 107 of February 21, 7 P.M.), to F. J. Brown, formerly chief delegate of Great Britain to the Preliminary Conference on Communications, to which the Foreign Office replied on February [25], 1922 [1921], (here insert date of Foreign Office note referred to in your telegram No. 152 of February 26, 1921, 2 P.M.), stating that "the Western Telegraph Company, having carried out their part of the agreement between the two companies, His Majesty's Government are of the opinion that

Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. 1, pp. 824 and 825, respectively.
Ibid., p. 826.

any proposal for the modification of that agreement should be addressed to the Western Telegraph Company by the Western Union Company direct".

In a further communication which was addressed to Mr. Brown on March [3], 1921, (here insert date of Embassy's communication to Mr. Brown based on Department's telegram No. 118, March 2, 1921, 5 P.M.), it was stated that since Mr. Brown's answer indicated that the British Government no longer had its former interest in the situation, it was assumed that no progress could be made by further exchange of views. It was observed, however, that without an agreement between the two governments on the larger question of policy involved, and their concurrent support, it was not apparent how the companies could make any progress toward a settlement by direct negotiations. In response to this communication the Foreign Office stated in its note of March [8], 1921, (here insert date of Foreign Office note quoted in your telegram No. 194 of March 9, 1921, 6 P.M.), that "the suggestion that direct relations should take place between the two companies was made merely because it was the opinion of His Majesty's Government that this would be the most effective means of reaching a solution satisfactory to both governments". In view of these repeated suggestions of the British Government, it was not unnatural that the Government of the United States did not again urge the Foreign Office to deal with the matter. The statement contained in the second paragraph of the Foreign. Office note that the Western Union Telegraph Company secured a landing license from the United States War Department indicates that the practice of my Government with respect to issuing licenses authorizing the landing of cables has not been understood by the British authorities, although it was fully explained in the note which was addressed to the Foreign Office on August [27], 1919, by my predecessor (here insert date of note to Foreign Office based on Department's instruction No. 324 of July 31, 1919). Reference is made to the copy of the Presidential permit for landing a cable on the shores of the United States, and also to the copy of the form of permit issued by the Secretary of War covering the physical landing of the cable, enclosed with that note. It is the custom in issuing Presidential licenses authorizing the landing and operation of cables in the United States to provide in the license that the location of the cables within the territorial waters of the United States and upon the foreshore thereof shall be in conformity with plans approved by the Secretary of War who acts on recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The permit of the Secretary of War does not authorize the establishment of a physical connection between the United States and a foreign country but approves the plans for laying cables in the territorial waters of the United States. The practice of the United States Government in this regard was well known to the Western Union Telegraph Company.

With respect to the statement that the Western Telegraph Company laid the south section of the cable from Brazil to Barbados at a cost of some three million dollars and the Western Union Tele

graph Company was about to land the north section at Miami when it was forcibly prevented from doing so by the United States Government, I am directed to state that it is the understanding of my Government that the section of the cable from Brazil to Barbados was not laid until after the attempt of the Western Union Telegraph Company to land its cable at Miami Beach had been opposed by the Government of the United States. Furthermore, on July 30, 1920, when information was received at the Department of State that the British cable ship Colonia was on its way from Plymouth to Miami Beach prepared to lay the cable from Miami Beach_to Barbados, the Secretary of State informed the British Ambassador at Washington that the United States had not issued a license for the landing of this cable and stated that since it appeared that an effort would be made to effect the landing of the cable despite the fact that the license was withheld, instructions had been issued to the Navy Department to safeguard the Government's position. It was further stated that since the vessel employed was a British vessel, it would be appreciated if a timely warning could be conveyed to her master. The British Ambassador replied on July 31, 1920, stating that he had taken steps to bring the matter to the notice of His Majesty's Government and had asked that every effort be made to prevent the cable steamer Colonia from attempting to land the cable. It appears that a warning was communicated to the master of the vessel by the British Vice Consul at Miami. Despite warnings given to the Western Union Telegraph Company that it would not be allowed to land its cable in the United States, so long as the objectionable monopoly existed in Brazil, and the notice given to the master of the Colonia, the company in August, 1920, laid the cable from a point outside the three mile limit off Miami Beach to Barbados.10 It is stated in an informal note No. 580 of July 27, 1921, from the British Ambassador at Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States 11 that "expenses were incurred by the delaying of the British cable ship Stephan which was occasioned by the circumstance that the operations allotted to her had to be carried out in conjunction with the S.S. Colonia". The Stephan laid the section of the cable from Maranhão, Brazil, to Barbados. It would appear from the foregoing that both cables were laid with knowledge that the Government of the United States was opposed to the landing of the cable in the United States so long as the monopoly in Brazil existed.

With regard to the statement in the third paragraph of the Foreign Office note that the Department of State apparently feared an adverse decision in the litigation which the Western Union Telegraph Company had instituted to enjoin the authorities of the Government from preventing the landing of the cable and secured the passage of an act transferring the authority to grant landing

8 Note of July 30, 1920, to the British Ambassador, Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. II, p. 687.

10

Reply not printed.

See memorandum of the Third Assistant Secretary of State, Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. II, p. 695.

"Not printed.

licenses from the War Department to the Department of State, I am instructed to state that His Majesty's Government has apparently overlooked the long line of precedents followed by the Government of the United States in refusing to permit the landing of the cable by the Western Union Telegraph Company and information which has been furnished His Majesty's Government regarding the procedure which has heretofore been followed in granting licenses. These precedents began with the action of the President when in 1869 he declined to allow a cable extending from France to the United States to be landed on the shores of the United States until a monopoly which had been granted by the French Government to the cable company which desired to lay the cable was abandoned.12 This precedent of prescribing conditions on which cables could be laid in the United States has been followed by Chief Executives of the United States and numerous permits authorizing the landing of cables have been issued. Furthermore, the Western Union Telegraph Company when the landing of certain cables was against its interest had effectively appealed to the President to prevent the landing of such cables without a Presidential permit. It will be seen from the foregoing that the Western Union Telegraph Company was fully aware of the long established policy of the Government of the United States with respect to the landing of cables when the foreign termini of the cables were in countries which had granted monopolies adversely affecting American interests. The Act of Congress, approved May 27, 1921, a copy of which is enclosed,18 was not intended to transfer from the War Department to the Department of State authority to grant licenses to land cables in the United States. The War Department has not at any time undertaken to grant such licenses. Its authority has been restricted to the regulation in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of Congress, approved March 3, 1899, of the construction of necessary works within the navigable waters of the United States to prevent interference with navigation. (30 Stat. L., 1115 [1151])

With respect to the statement which representatives of the Department of State are said to have made during the Preliminary Conference on Communications held in Washington in 1920 and 1921, to the effect that it was contrary to the practice of the United States to grant landing licenses to companies enjoying exclusive privileges in foreign countries, I am directed to inform you that the statement which Sir William Tyrrell makes does not accurately describe the position of the Government of the United States. It has been the long standing practice of the Government of the United States to decline to grant to foreign companies permission to land in the United States cables connecting with foreign countries in which the foreign company has obtained monopolistic privileges which exclude American cable companies. This practice was extended to the Western Union Telegraph Company in the matter of the Company's application for permission to land a cable at Miami

12

See S. Ex. Doc. No. 122, 49th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 65 ff'. 13 Printed, 42 Stat. 8.