TOC | Previous Section: Chapter IV | Next Section: Chapter VI
History of Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy, Captain Linwood S. Howeth, USN (Retired), 1963, pages 51-59:


CHAPTER  V


Early  Planning  and  Development  Problems


1.  PREPARATION

While Barber and Bradford were procuring equipment, the Navy was engaged with plans to prepare personnel, ships, stations, and schools to meet the problems involved in testing, installing, and operating radio equipment. These plans included the establishment of two radio stations, one at the Washington Navy Yard, the other at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.,1 for the purpose of conducting comparative tests of the equipment being purchased. The extent of these preparations are detailed in Bradford's letter, dated 27 January 1902, to the Commandant, Navy Yard, Washington. This included instructions as to the method of installing the necessary "earth" at the stations, which, ". . . must be carefully done to insure long-distance transmission . . ." It was recommended that several large copper sheets having, in the aggregate, about 125 square feet of surface, on one side, be buried, horizontally, at least 6 feet below the surface, or deeper if in sandy or dry soil. These earth plates were to be put as near as possible to the place where the instruments were to be installed, but not necessarily near the antenna masts. They were to be connected by several large, uninsulated, copper, electric-light wires by carefully soldering them to clean, dry surfaces of the plates, and finally these wires were to be brought to the surface and in turn soldered to a single copper strip placed conveniently near the point where the instruments would be located. The last-mentioned copper strip would serve for making all ground connections of the apparatus.2
    Instructions were issued to prepare ships' masts to accommodate antennas. In a memorandum to the Bureau of Construction and Repair, dated 4 January 1902, the Bureau of Equipment requested that "all ships under construction except the four single-turret monitors, and those to be built in the future, be provided with masts suitable for the use of radiotelegraph apparatus."3 On battleships and cruisers, it suggested the use of hemp rigging for the topgallant mast and the insulation of the topmast wire rigging from the ship by setting up with hemp lanyards. It was further suggested that the lower masts be of steel while topmasts and topgallant masts be of wood. Unfortunately, no decision was reached at this time relative to the locations of the transmitters and receivers, nor was a belowdeck installation specified.
    Taking steps to obtain the most desirable locations for shore radio stations, the Bureau of Equipment, in May 1902, recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury be asked to permit the Navy Department to erect a mast and small operating buildings at the following lighthouse stations: Cape Cod, Mass.; Montauk Point, Long Island; Highlands of Navesink, N.J.; Cape Henry, Va.; and Golden Gate (Bonita), Calif. These stations were to communicate, respectively, with the Boston Navy Yard; the Torpedo Station, Newport, R.I.; New York Navy Yard; Norfolk Navy Yard; and Mare Island Navy Yard and the Yerba Buena Training Station, San Francisco. The stations thus established would, at a later time, be used to communicate with the naval vessels to be fitted with radio installations.4
    This request was approved by the Secretary of the Treasury in a letter of 4 June of that year,5 with the following reservations:
That the masts and other appliances be established and maintained at the Light Stations without cost to the Treasury Department and erected at such points on the Light Station sites as the Lighthouse Establishment designated.
    That Navy personnel connected with the erection and maintenance of the wireless installation at Light Stations not interfere with employees at the Light Stations and that they be subordinate to and under the supervision of the Principal Lightkeeper at each Light Station.
    That the masts and wireless equipment be removed from the Light Stations by the Navy Department whenever requested by the Treasury Department in the interest of the Lighthouse Establishment.
    With the envisioned establishment of quite a few stations and the consequent requirement for operators, plans were made for setting up school units at Newport, New York, and San Francisco for the instruction of personnel in operating and maintenance. The Bureau of Navigation was tardy in implementing these plans, and when, in 1903, they detailed 13 students to the school at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the number was far less than the existing requirement. This caused a temporary decline in the rate of progress of the installation program.
    Plans were also formulated for installing apparatus at Key West and Dry Tortugas, Fla., as had been recommended by Barber, for the purpose of studying the effects of varying climatic conditions on radio equipment and transmissions. These plans were not put to use.

2.  THE  COMPARATIVE  TESTS

The eight sets of European equipment arrived about the 1st of August 1902. At the request of the Bureau of Equipment, a board was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy to supervise the trials and determine the type of apparatus best suited to the needs of the Navy. The Bureau was handicapped by lack of officers adequately trained in radio, and those who had the necessary qualifications had other primary duties and could not devote their full time to the work. This proved true of the five-member Wireless Telegraph Board, which was appointed on 14 August 1902, and which convened 4 days later. It was composed of Comdr. Conway H. Arnold, USN, senior member; Comdrs. George L. Dyer and Charles J. Badger, USN; and Lt. Albert M. Beecher, USN, members; with Hudgins as member and recorder. Later, Comdr. Hugo Osterhaus, USN, and Lt. J. L. Jayne, USN, replaced Dyer and Beecher, respectively, and still later Comdr. George H. Peters, USN, took Badger's place.6 The Bureau of Equipment provided the Board with complete instructions for carrying out the tests with, perhaps, little realization of their magnitude and complexity. These included, among other things, the comparison of the various sets under different conditions of use, influences that might outwardly affect transmission, such as the effect of heat, fog, varying atmospheric conditions, atmospheric disturbances, and interference from any cause whatever. Upon convening, the Board inspected the Washington station, instructed the recorder to carry on with the work and to summons the Board when definite results were attained.
    During the tests of any particular apparatus, only the manufacturer or his accredited representative was permitted to be present. This was to preclude competing manufacturers and other persons gaining knowledge of the results. Accordingly, from time to time, manufacturers' representatives did make their appearance to lend aid either in advising or to assist in obtaining better performance from their sets. M. Rochefort represented himself; the Slaby-Arco organization sent Messrs. Schiller and Kaiser;7 the Braun-Siemens-Halske firm was represented by Mr. Korndorfer; and De Forest and his assistant, Mr. Harry Horton, were present during tests of the equipment of the De Forest Wireless Telegraph Co.
    The instruction received by Bell and Bean at the European plants had been concentrated in such a short time, that the apparatus was even yet somewhat mysterious to them. They were joined by another chief electrician's mate, John Scanlin, who was to make a name for himself during the developmental years of this new science. Assembling and adjusting the sets called for skill and experience yet unattained, in appreciable measure, by these novices. Working under conditions8 which certainly were not conducive to producing the best results and which would be unacceptable today, they, nonetheless, by guesswork and by trial and error, turned in a creditable performance, a great monument to their ingenuity and resourcefulness.
    The period between 18 August and 9 October was utilized in testing the equipments of the four European manufacturers between the Washington and Annapolis stations. On 20 October the U.S.S. Prairie reported to assist in the tests for 10 days. Tests were made between Annapolis and the ship with Slaby-Arco and Braun equipments and communications were maintained up to distances of 90 and 100 miles, respectively. Following this, intermittent testing was conducted between Washington and Annapolis using the four types of European equipment or combinations of them with the De Forest apparatus until 6 January 1903. After that date further testing was suspended to await the assignment of a vessel for additional ship-shore tests.9
    On 3 December 1902 the Board submitted an ad interim report on the tests conducted to that date. This was primarily concerned with the Slaby-Arco and Braun equipments and pointed out the superiority of the former. In a letter of transmittal to the Secretary of the Navy, Bradford expressed his great regret that the experiments had been interrupted by the lack of vessels and by the transfer of two members of the Board. He considered that no important results would be accomplished unless members of the Board could give their undivided attention to the project and be furnished with the necessary assistance.10
    On 7 April 1903, the U.S.S. Topeka was assigned to assist the Board. For the next month ship-shore tests were conducted using the equipments of six manufacturers. During the final tests of each apparatus communications were maintained up to the following approximate distances:11
 
 Miles
Rochefort25
Ducretet43
Braun-Siemens-Halske15
Slaby-Arco52
De Forest40
Slaby-Arco transmitter--Consolidated receiver30

    These tests were at times enlivened by unusual occurrences. While making a routine visit to the Naval Academy, the Secretary of the Navy became very much interested and engrossed in observing the operation of the De Forest equipment. He failed to notice a ground wire, over which he tripped and slightly injured himself. Horton, the De Forest operator, quickly sent a short account of the incident to De Forest in Washington, thus probably becoming the first radio press agent to report an unscheduled event. De Forest lost no time in telephoning the news to the Navy Department. On another occasion a reporter for the local newspaper, finding the tests at Annapolis a fruitful source of news, paid daily long visits to observe operations and wander around among the instruments. Finally, he made himself persona non grata. He was told to limit his visits to one a week, at which time he would be given a story. Indignant, he retaliated by providing his paper with a sarcastic account of the trials, the tenor of which was, "They are testing a so-called 'wireless' down at the Academy, but if you ask me they have enough wire strung between the mast and the Academy building to reach all the way to Washington."12
    The ship-shore tests were followed by ones between two ships when the U.S.S. Prairie again returned to assist on 8 May. Lodge-Muirhead equipments, which had been ordered on 30 March 1903,13 were added to the equipments. Comparative range tests were conducted until 14 July with the following results in reception in nautical miles:14
 
 U.S.S.
  Topeka  
U.S.S.
  Prairie  
Slaby-Arco6232
Ducretet2415
Rochefort1320
De Forest5454
Braun-Siemens-Halske2522
Slaby-Arco De Forest composite
    transmitter-Slaby-Arco receiver
2633
Lodge-Muirhead3339

The Board completed its work on 20 July with a ship-shore test of the Lodge-Muirhead equipments. Communications between Annapolis and the Topeka were maintained up to a distance of about 30 miles.15
    Throughout the period of these tests great difficulty was experienced in maintaining the equipment, most of which was not sufficiently rugged in construction to withstand the numerous moves and the rigors of shipboard use.16
    In summary, in its final report, dated 28 August 1903, the Board stated that its work was delayed and hampered by the lack of proper facilities, particularly in obtaining and holding ships for the carrying out of the ship-shore and ship-ship tests. Little opportunity was afforded to test composite equipments or to study the very important questions of tuning and selectivity. The extent of the work done in those matters was to note to the extent to which atmospheric electric discharges, neighboring transmitting stations, and other local disturbances interfered with the communications between the stations. It pointed out that experimental work was necessarily slow, especially in a new field where the effect of the slightest change had to be determined by long and repeated tests. The work of the Board was also delayed by the lack of a sufficient number of trained operators, since this necessitated utilizing considerable time for familiarization. It opined that this lack of operators would be acutely felt when the contemplated installations on ships and at shore stations were completed, and that immediate action should be taken to provide additional facilities for training. The questions of the advantages of different locations on shipboard for the instruments and radically different arrangements of antennas were not resolved; rather it was concluded that they should be determined experimentally for each ship, or at least for one ship of each class.17
    The final recommendation of the Board stated:
In considering the results of tests conducted and the action of the instruments during tests, the board is of the opinion that the Slaby-Arco apparatus is the one best adapted to naval use among all the various systems tried, not only on account of its greater range, but also on account of its reliability, freedom from interference, adjustability, and ease of manipulation by unskilled or poorly trained operators, and the Board therefore recommends that sufficient sets of this apparatus be purchased to install on naval vessels and shore stations which it is desired to equip.18
Fig. 5-1
3.  PURCHASE  OF  ADDITIONAL  EQUIPMENTS

By the spring of 1903 the tests had produced sufficient indication of the superiority of the Slaby-Arco equipment to warrant, after consultation with the senior member of the Wireless Board, the purchase of additional numbers of that equipment. On 27 March 1903, the Bureau placed an order for 20 sets, with the delivery being requested by midsummer. The total price paid for these 20 model 1903 Slaby-Arco equipments was M86,000.0019
    Following receipt of the Wireless Telegraph Board's final report, the Bureau, on 10 September 1903, placed another order for 25 Slaby-Arco equipments. When the delivery of these was made, the total number of this manufacture owned by the Navy was 47. Including 10 of other manufacture, the grand total of complete usable equipments was 57.

4.  REPERCUSSIONS  FROM  AMERICAN  MANUFACTURERS  RESULTANT  OF  SLABY-ARCO  PURCHASES

Following the early 1903 purchase of Slaby-Arco equipment, one American firm immediately lodged a protest. In early May 1903, Fessenden, of the National Electric Signaling Co., informed the Secretary of the Navy that for some years his company had been developing a system of radiotelegraphy which, in his own words, "is believed to be superior to any other on the market." He stated that he had received no notification regarding tests and that he had noticed in the press that 30 sets of apparatus of foreign manufacture had been purchased by the Navy Department. He suggested that, prior to making large purchases of foreign built equipment, his system which had been developed by Americans should be given a trial. Additionally, he claimed that the purchased foreign apparatus infringed the patents owned by his company in various respects, and that, if the Navy finally decided to purchase such foreign apparatus without testing his system, he would be glad to be informed as to the proper method of obtaining redress for the infringement of his methods.20
    On 7 May 1903, he was informed of the earlier correspondence with Queen & Co. and of the non-receipt of the promised information. In replying, he stated that he was unaware of this correspondence and that he had no connection with that firm.21 Upon receipt of this information, he was requested to submit proposals, 22 which he promptly did, quoting a price of $2,000 per set, with delivery within six weeks, and with a guarantee of distance coverage of from 50 to 200 miles when used with antennas 50 to 150 feet in height and a power of sixty watts.23
    Without awaiting reply, Fessenden, in the same month, proposed furnishing two sets, with operators, at his own company's expense. He was directed to contact Capt. C. H. Arnold, USN, Senior Member of the Wireless Telegraph Board,24 then in the U.S.S. Prairie, operating out of Hampton Roads, Va. After discussion, Arnold offered him the week of 21 June for tests, but on 13 June Fessenden withdrew his offer, stating:
On account of pressure of other business, and the fact that the apparatus constructed for this test would be special and could not be used elsewhere it is not certain that our Company would dare to supply apparatus at its own expense and it would probably be better for the Department to do as it had done in the case of the other companies, i.e., order from us a couple of sets of apparatus wound to meet your requirements. These we would be willing to furnish for the sum of $5,000.00 it being distinctly understood, however, that this price was not to form a precedent but is merely made so that you can arrange to test our apparatus at as little expense to the Department as possible.25
In the interim, Fessenden demonstrated his equipment to Hudgins at Fortress Monroe, and, in informal conversations, provided details and outlined its advantages. Fessenden advised the Board that, as of 23 July 1903, there were Fessenden stations in actual operation at Cape Charles City, Old Point Comfort, and Ocean View, Va.; New York City; Philadelphia; and Point Reyes, Calif., and several places in Brazil. The Board asked him to provide them a list of stations he contemplated establishing within the next 6 months, to which he replied:
I would say that we have not yet decided as to the exact points but we do expect to erect some thirty or forty stations during that time.26
    On 5 September 1903, he wrote the Secretary of the Navy a letter from which the following is quoted:
I should also like to have an interview with you to secure some information as to the best means of taking up the question of royalties on apparatus which are due us from the Navy. As you are aware, the Navy has purchased some twenty or thirty sets of Slaby-Arco apparatus which apparatus infringes a number of our most important patents. In fact, the Slaby-Arco people would not be able to operate more than a few miles if it were not for the fact that they are using the methods invented by us and covered by our U.S. Patents. These patents have been investigated by Messrs. Kenyon & Kenyon, who are perhaps the most eminent patent lawyers in this country, who have declared them valid and sustainable in court.
    We therefore are desirous of taking the proper steps to secure the royalties due us from the Navy for the use of our patented apparatus as used by the Slaby-Arco people. These royalties will amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000.00 per set and the total will therefore amount to considerable.
This letter continued with Fessenden inviting attention to the difference in the attitudes of the United States and German Governments relative to radio. In Germany, Professor Slaby had been granted considerable sums of money, and every possible assistance, including a decoration by the Kaiser and the adoption of his system by his Government. This, "in spite of the fact that the forms are largely made up of methods devised and patented by us and by the Marconi Co." In contrast with the actions of the German Government, in the United States, where his firm had spent in excess of $100,000 to date in experimental work, and had devised apparatus which "is vastly more sensitive and very much more reliable, which can be used for sending code messages in all kinds of weather and which is very much more free from outside disturbances," the Government declined to purchase a single set of apparatus. He deplored the fact, that, far from giving him any encouragement at all, it had gone abroad to buy equipment which "is not only very much inferior to ours but which obtains what value it has from the fact that it is an embodiment of the ideas invented and patented by us." He opined that such a state of affairs would cease to exist when brought to the attention of the Secretary of the Navy. He, therefore, requested a personal interview in order to resolve the matter in the shortest possible time.27
    In another letter, less than two weeks later, also addressed to the Navy's Secretary, he brought out numerous points, among which he noted the following:
That the United States inventor's apparatus was offered to the Navy at less than actual cost of manufacture, i.e. $2,500 and that even in lots of 50, the apparatus gives but a small profit when sold for $4,000 per set. The lowest price offered to other parties has been $5,000 per set, this giving a 40 percent profit or less.
    That if the German manufacturer had to pay the same price for labor as is paid in America or had to pay duty, and if he forwarded the apparatus complete to the same extent as the American inventor, he could not sell it for less than $2,500.
    That if the German inventor had to pay the heavy expense of making his own inventions instead of appropriating American inventions, and if he had no more encouragement from his own government than the American inventor had from the United States Government, he could not sell the apparatus for less than $5,000 per set.
    That the Slaby-Arco apparatus will not operate to any useful extent without infringing the American inventor's patents.28
    Upon receipt of this letter, the Secretary decided that prior to granting his requested interview it would be best to obtain some knowledge of this individual who was continually flooding his office with complaints. Since Fessenden had recently been in the employ of the Department of Agriculture, he requested a written opinion of him from the Secretary of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture's reply was forthcoming within the week. It stated that Mr. Fessenden had been employed in the Weather Bureau from 19 January 1900 to 31 August 1902, but had been suspended for "disobedience of orders and insubordination" and had resigned while under this suspension. It confirmed the fact that Fessenden had patented a number of devices but stated that they were of dubious value. He was said to be "intractable and insubordinate as an employee, unreliable in his statements and extravagant in his claims as to the performance and possibilities of his inventions."29
    Following receipt of information concerning the Navy's additional purchase of 25 Slaby-Arco equipments, he wrote numerous letters belaboring the matter. In one, dated 20 February 1904, he observed that, as the result of Navy tests on apparatus of other makes, a system was selected and "it was understood that between 50 and 70 sets have been purchased." Such being the case, he could not refrain from "respectfully petitioning" that the National Electric Signaling Co. "be permitted to enter suit against the U.S. Navy for damages for the use of our devices."30 The Navy Department replied, "Any action by this Department attempting to confer jurisdiction upon the Courts where, by the law it does not already exist, would be a mere nullity, as the Department has no authority in that respect."31 This was not the end of the difficulties which would be caused by this self-opinionated, highly tempered individual.
    While Fessenden was writing his contentious letters to the Secretary of the Navy, the Marconi interests were analyzing their position. Their right of monopoly was being questioned internationally,32 and the sale of Slaby-Arco equipment to the U.S. Navy further weakened their position. In an endeavor to ensnare the Navy, they, on 30 November 1903, inquired if it would consider the use of its apparatus on its ships under certain conditions, "which we trust is analagous to arrangements with other private commercial interests to which your Bureau has consented." In summarizing the salient portions of the proposed agreements the company stated it would furnish its latest and improved apparatus complete, each set to be marked "For use of U.S. Navy only," in addition to its regular and patent marks, for $2,265 per set, to be paid at time of delivery as full rental for the life of the apparatus or patents, all apparatus when useless or worn out to be returned to the Marconi Co.33 This effort was sown in fallow soil.

___________________
    1 Letter, dated 9 Dec. 1901, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment to the Secretary of the Navy, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    2 Letter, dated 27 Jan 1902, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment to Commandant, Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    3 Memorandum, dated 4 Jan. 1902, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment to Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    4 Letter, dated 24 May, 1902, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment to the Secretary of the Navy; ltr., dated 26 May 1902, the Secretary of the Navy, to the Secretary of the Treasury, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    5 Letter, dated 4 June 1904, Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Navy, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    6 Letter dated 14 Aug. 1902, Acting Secretary of the Navy to Comdr. Conway H. Arnold, USN; letter, dated 18 Aug. 1902, Secretary of the Navy to Cmdr. Conway H. Arnold, USN, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    7 Letter, dated 29 Aug. 1902, Algemeine Elektricitats-Gesellschaft to the Chief of the Bureau of Equipment, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    8 The following story of Mr. George Clark is illustrative of these conditions. "If anyone calls me, say I stepped out, Mr. Scanlin. I can stand God Almighty's lightning, but I can't stand his and Mr. Bean's at the same time." And with these comments, the ex-Confederate soldier, Scalemaster Whalen, stumped with his wooden leg out into a terrific lightning storm in the Washington Navy Yard. Half of his weighing house back of the Commandant's quarters, had been assigned to house the apparatus for the radio tests, and with such warnings confronting him as "60,000 volts, Deadly Keep Away," he was ill at ease. In spite of the terrific din made by the 1½-inch gap which Bean and Scanlan were using, Whalen stuck to his post, except when exposed to the combination of the two, when he sought refuge in a nearby storehouse. Such was the humble beginning of the U.S. Naval Radio Station, Washington, which would eventually be the major control of a world dominating network. The Physics and Chemistry Building at the Naval Academy contributed space and a table at Annapolis to the other test terminal, while the flag poles at the respective stations served to suspend the antennas ("Radioana," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Clark, "Radio in War and Peace" (unpublished manuscript n.d.)).
    9 Report of the Wireless Telegraph Board, dated 28 Aug. 1903, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington. D.C.
    10 Letter, dated 3 Dec. 1902, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment to the Secretary of the Navy, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    11 Report of the Wireless Telegraph Board, dated 28 Aug. 1903, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    12 "Radioana," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. (G. H. Clark, "Radio in War and Peace," unpublished manuscript, n.d.), p. 26.
    13 Letter, dated 30 Mar. 1903, Bureau of Equipment to Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C. The "estimated price" was quoted as $2500 for the two sets.
    14 Report of the Wireless Telegraph Board, dated 28 Aug. 1903, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    15 Ibid.
    16 Ibid.
    17 Ibid.
    18 Ibid.
    19 Letter, dated 8 Apr. 1904, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment to Comdr. F. M. Barber, USN (retired), files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    20 Letter, dated 2 May 1903, Reginald A. Fessenden to the Secretary of the Navy, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    21 Letter, dated 8 May 1903, Secretary of the Navy to Reginald A. Fessenden, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    22 Letter, dated 7 May 1903, Secretary of the Navy to Reginald A. Fessenden, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    23 Letter, dated 8 May 1903, Reginald A. Fessenden to the Chief of the Bureau of Equipment, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    24 Letter, dated 21 May 1903, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment to Reginald A. Fessenden, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    25 Letter, dated 13 June 1903, R. A. Fessenden to Capt. C. H. Arnold, USN, Senior Member, Wireless Telegraph Board, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    26 Letter, dated 23 July 1903, R. A. Fessenden to Capt. C. H. Arnold, USN, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    27 Letter, dated 5 Sept. 1903, R. A. Fessenden to the Secretary of the Navy, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    28 Letter, dated 17 Sept. 1903, R. A. Fessenden to Secretary of the Navy, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    29 Letter, dated 19 Sept. 1903, Secretary of Agriculture to Secretary of Navy, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
    30 Letter, dated 20 Feb. 1904, from R. A. Fessenden to Secretary of the Navy. "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    31 Letter, dated 1 Mar. 1904, Secretary of the Navy to R. A. Fessenden, "Radioana," op. cit., files, National Electric Signaling Co.
    32 The First International Radio Telegraph Conference had been held in Berlin and had drafted a protocol aimed at the elimination of any radio monopoly (infra, ch. VII).
    33 Letter, dated 30 Nov. 1903. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America to the Bureau of Equipment, files, Bureau of Equipment, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
TOC | Previous Section: Chapter IV | Next Section: Chapter VI