2. Vessels of small tonnage which are unable to have plants on board insuring a wave length of 300 meters may be authorized to use a shorter wave length.

V. The exchange of superfluous signals and words is prohibited to stations of the class referred to in article 1 of the convention. Experiments and practice will be permitted in such stations in so far as they do not interfere with the service of other stations.

VI, 1. No station on shipboard shall be established or worked by private enterprise without authority from the government to which the vessel is subject. Such authority shall be in the nature of a license issued by said government.

3. The service of the station on shipboard shall be carried on by a telegraph operator holding a certificate issued by the government to which the vessel is subject.

To try to carry out so far as possible in the United States the important purposes of the Berlin convention, the Department of Commerce and Labor, in conjunction with the Treasury Department, the War Department, and the Navy Department, prepared a bill to regulate radiocommunication. This bill was the result of several months of conference between the departments concerned and the representatives of wireless companies, and was introduced in the Senate on March 17, 1910. It was discussed at length before the Senate Committee on Commerce and passed the Senate unanimously on June 16, 1910. A similar bill was reported unanimously to the House of Representatives on April 1, 1910, but held for the Senate bill which did not reach the House in time for action before final adjournment on June 25, 1910. The bills were accompanied by full reports from committees (S. Rep. No. 659, 61st Cong., 2d sess., to accompany S. 7243, and H. Rept. No. 924, to accompany H. R. 23595), which set forth fully the provisions and purpose of the bill. The bill provides, in brief, for Federal licenses for the operation of wireless apparatus at ship or shore stations and for Federal licenses for wireless operators. The President is authorized to establish regulations to prevent interference with messages relating to vessels in distress or of naval or military stations, and severe penalties are imposed for uttering false or fraudulent distress calls and messages. Distress messages and naval and military messages have priority. The general administration of the bill is intrusted to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and the measure itself is carefully drawn within the commerce clause of the Constitution. It is very much hoped that the bill may be passed at the coming session of Congress, as six months' notice should be given before enforcement. It is a necessary supplement to the wireless-ship act, and will bring the United States abreast of other nations. Such legislation would be necessary if we adhere to the Berlin Radiotelegraphic Convention. It is hoped that the Senate may yet find a way to ratify that convention, but if the objections arising from our land-telegraph system can not be overcome or passed by, then the passage of the bill referred to will secure to the United States the essential benefits which the international convention has brought to other nations. The International Radiotelegraphic Conference will assemble at London on June 4, 1912, and although the United States is not a party to the convention we should be represented at the conference. Radiocommunication, now only 17 years old, is plainly destined to play a part of growing importance in commerce and navigation, and if this country should unavoidably ever become involved in war it will be invaluable in national defense.

GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

The desirability of Federal regulation of radiocommunication compels attention to the essential difference between the relations of wireless telegraphy to the Government of the United States and to the governments of all the other great powers. A brief inspection of the list of wireless shore stations of the world in Appendix M (compiled from the useful list, giving various important details, of the Bureau of Steam Engineering, Navy Department) will well repay any man who desires to acquaint himself with the situation throughout the rest of the world, and in the United States. That glance will show that in virtually every other country and in all the great colonies of European countries the wireless shore stations are owned and operated by the governments, respectively. In Great Britain and Canada there are some commercial wireless coast stations, but it will be noted that the territory which each may cover is also covered by a Government station. Discriminating examination of the list will also disclose a complete cordon of American naval wireless stations. around the coast from Maine to New Orleans, branching off to Porto Rico, the naval station at Guantanamo, Cuba, and the Canal Zone, and thence up the Pacific coast to Unalaska and the Pribilof Islands, with "branch lines," so to speak, to Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines. The Japanese Government carries the principle of government ownership further than European powers, and the Japanese trans-Pacific passenger steamships are equipped with apparatus furnished by the Government and operated by employees of the Government.

The extent of government ownership abroad is due primarily to the fact that wireless telegraphy is operated as a branch of each country's general telegraph system, and the telegraph systems are organized under and managed by the post office departments of each country, respectively, with which they have obvious and necessary connection anywhere.

There is another reason, however, for the extent of government ownership of wireless telegraphic systems. Land-telegraph lines fall entirely within territorial jurisdiction. They can at any time, if necessary, be seized, controlled, or cut off entirely by a simple pair of nippers. While submarine transoceanic cables are under international protection (Navigation Laws, 1911, p. 443), license to establish a cable landing and shore station must be secured from government. In our war with Spain the facility with which ocean cables may be cut as a measure of offense or defense was repeatedly demonstrated. From its nature, wireless telegraphy pays no heed to territorial boundaries. It can be controlled in event of war, or, even further, in the tense and vital periods of preparation which immediately precede the actual declaration of war, only by the most searching and complete surveillance of government. The reasons for complete government control of wireless coast stations appeal even to the mind to which the general theory of government ownership is objectionable. In the event of war involving the United States-improbable but still possible-we should find any possible antagonist equipped to-day, and long before a possible declaration. with virtually complete control of all the wireless systems within his jurisdiction. Our preparation consists of a complete naval coast

system, with the admirable interior military system of the Signal Corps, but in addition there are numerous commercial stations of more or less efficiency which would have to be put at least under surveillance and probably would have to be taken over entirely by Government.

In peaceful times, like the present, the commercial system of the United States in respect of wireless telegraphy presents a striking example of economic waste. We have a Government seacoast system, maintained by Congress, so complete that it is within bounds to say that any ship equipped with wireless apparatus under the wireless-ship act of 1910 can be in communication with a naval shore station at all times on voyages along the coast between ports 200 miles or more distant. This Government system is duplicated at some points and to a greater or less degree of efficiency by commercial stations owned and operated by four or five corporations. It is no trade secret that thus far these corporations have not declared large dividends. Possibly in some instances the returns have been invested in experiments or improvements; possibly plants have been erected ample to supply a future rather than the present demand, and there may have been even instances where stock has been issued on no more tangible an asset than the ether itself. Waiving the matter of national defense, the dual system of Government and private shore stations means wastefulness to the people of the United States. This waste, from the nature of things, must increase as competing companies extend their plants and duplicate among themselves apparatus, stations, and operators, or one company will in time absorb the others and establish a monopoly. The situation has been brought home to this Bureau in the enforcement of the wireless-ship act. One company, which has equipped many trans-Atlantic steamships, has no Pacific coast stations in the United States. Several other companies have various vessels equipped, but only limited shore facilities. So far as possible, Congress has regulated the situation by providing for compulsory interchange between systems, but there can not be cordial cooperation when one company must devote its shore plant, representing considerable investment, to aid a competitor without any shore equipment, in competing with it for business on shipboard. The naval coast stations, in the last analysis, are the immediate guaranty that the law can and will be effective.

In the light of experience it is probable that, if we had now to meet at the beginning the question of land-telegraph lines, the United States would have assumed the ownership and operation of them as other nations have done. Our telegraph systems now represent an immense investment and, even if acquisition were deemed desirable, which is not here for a moment intimated, the cost to the Treasury would be very large. Commercially the wireless systems in the United States are infants. One, for example, with a nominal capital of hundreds of thousands, represents an actual investment of $30,000. The principal companies at the present time are engaged in expensive litigation over patent rights. That the companies are thus involved is not a reason for taking advantage of weakness and dissension. It is, however, a contributory disclosure of the fact that the actual investments thus far made are small and not yet of assured value. If it should be deemed desirable for the Government of the United States to acquire the same ownership and control of wireless stations within

its limits which other nations have acquired virtually from the outset, that result can be brought about, with adequate consideration for all bona fide investments of individuals, at much less cost and with much less disturbance to the established order of things now than in the course of a few years. There are, of course, some obvious objections to the suggestion, and it may be urged that the course of invention would be hampered by Government ownership. The suggestion, not recommendation, of Government ownership has been made with diffidence, because it has been forced by experience upon the Bureau, at the outset opposed on conviction to the principle involved. The matter is too large and involves too many questions to be the basis of recommendation by an ordinary bureau.

MOTOR-BOAT ACT.

The act of June 9, 1910, generally known as the motor-boat act, went into effect on July 9, 1910, and thus has been in operation for over a year. Its first purpose was to substitute reasonable requirements as to lights and sound signaling apparatus for the impossible requirements of the acts of 1895 and 1897, passed when gasoline and naphtha vessels were little used. The changes made by the act of 1910 have met expectations and are generally approved. Under the old acts motor-boat men did not try to obey a law which could not be obeyed, and collectors of customs could not be expected to attempt to carry it out. The improvement in navigation conditions on rivers, harbors, and lakes is everywhere recognized by the masters of large vessels as well as by those who operate motor boats.

The second purpose of the act was directly to increase the safety of life on these small boats by providing for means of extinguishing fire and of saving those in danger of drowning. In the summers of 1908 and 1909 fatal accidents from burning gasoline and from lack of life preservers were recorded almost weekly in the newspapers. Such accidents were less in 1910, and during the summer just closed there have been few fires on motor boats, and none resulting fatally is recalled. In some instances life has been lost by capsizing, but such loss, where any kind of life preserver has been available, has been rarely recorded. The improved conditions are due in a great part to better construction and equipment by builders, and to higher requirements by owners, but the new law has been a stimulus to both, and also has been a check to the reckless on whom statute has to bring the pressure which prudence fails to supply.

SCOPE OF APPLICATION.

Reported violations of the motor-boat act, which are considered on another page, numbered 1,811 during the past fiscal year. The number seems very large, but the act applies to the most numerous class of vessels yet brought within the operation of the navigation laws. In last year's report it was estimated that the law applied to upward of 100,000 motor boats. On September 5, 1911, collectors and surveyors of customs were requested to furnish an approximate estimate of the number of motor boats navigated in their districts, respectively, during the past season. These estimates, printed in Appendix L, aggregate 110,067. The estimates must be below the

facts for several reasons. Customs districts are not so defined under existing law as to cover the entire United States, and large reaches of navigable waters under Federal jurisdiction are not comprised within any customs district. The lines dividing districts are not clearly defined, and further, out of usual official precaution against overstatement, collectors in some districts have based their estimates only on facts under their inspectors' direct observation.

Operators of motor boats carrying passengers for hire are required to take out Federal licenses which are valid for five years. That law took effect on May 16, 1906, and during the balance of that fiscal year 345 such licenses were issued. During the following complete fiscal year, ended June 30, 1906, there were 9,776 such licenses issued, and during the past year 5,653. In the past five years 32,617 such licenses were issued. In occasional cases, doubtless, licenses are voluntarily taken out by operators whose boats do not carry passengers for hire. Probably there are 30,000 motor boats in the entire country which at some time in the year carry passengers for hire. The great majority of motor boats, however, are built for pleasure and rarely or never enter into trade. Again, in many sections of the country such boats are used to carry produce to market but not passengers. Small sail vessels employed in fishing for several years past have been equipped with motors. It is reasonably certain that not more than one motor boat out of five is employed in carrying passengers for hire, and on this conjecture, coupled with the number of operators' licenses, the total number of motor boats would be about 150,000. This figure is believed to be an approximation of the facts.

It may be checked by the number of automobiles. The Census bulletin shows that 127,000 automobiles were built in the United States in 1909, compared with only 3,000 in 1899. Estimates of the total number of automobiles in the United States range from 400,000 to 500,000. The automobile is nearly always new construction. The motor boat is often a former sailboat or rowboat converted by an ingenious owner, able himself to install a new or secondhand engine on board. The general use of automobiles antedates by several years the general use of motor boats, but the automobile is shorter lived than the motor boat. Automobile figures thus corroborate the estimate of about 150,000 motor boats.

The Bureau has been furnished with estimates by those directly concerned with motor boats ranging from 225,000 to 400,000, but is disposed to believe that in these estimates, certainly the latter, enthusiasm has gone far ahead of the facts. Before many years there doubtless will be 400,000 motor boats. The number of motor boats is so large and the number of persons all through the country who use them for so many different purposes is so great that any general legislation upon the subject should be carefully considered.

FURTHER REGULATION.

The Bureau has been urged during the year to recommend some bill requiring all motor boats to bear an official number or name registered in the customhouses, for purposes of identification. Such a name or number has been proposed because Federal officers have found boats without name or number navigated in violation of the