Ambassador Tower to the
Secretary of State.
American
Embassy,
Berlin,
November 17, 1906.
No. 1058.]
Sir: I have the honor to inclose to you herewith a
copy of the convention of international radio telegraph entered into at the
conference held in Berlin by representatives of Germany, the United States
of America, the Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Greece, Italy,
Japan, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania,
Russia, Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay, with a copy of the rules and
regulations, called “reglement de service,” which were annexed to the
convention and agreed to by the respective countries represented at the
conference.
The conference of radio-telegraphy assembled in the building of the Reichstag
on the. 3d of October, 1906, under the presidency of His Excellency Herr von
Kratke, secretary of state for the imperial German postal department, who
delivered the inaugural address and declared the conference opened. The
sessions were continued subsequently without interruption until the 3d day
of November, when the final meeting was held and the convention and the règlement de service were duly signed by the
delegates, respectively, of the countries represented; the signatures having
been appended to the convention, to the règlement de
service, to the engagement additionnel, as
well as to the protocole final, subject to the
ratification of the governments themselves which the delegates severally and
respectively represented, it being understood that the convention is to be
ratified by each government and the ratifications deposited in Berlin with
as little delay as possible.
[Page 1516]
I inclose to you herewith also copies of each amendment introduced and
discussed during the sessions of the conference (101 amendments in all), and
copies of the minutes (procès-verbaux) of each session, showing the debates
which took place in regard to each one of these amendments and the final
disposition which was made of each of them. I inclose also the comparison of
the original text of the convention, as proposed by Germany at the beginning
of the conference, and the text which was adopted at the first reading; also
the comparison of the text of the proposed règlement cle service with the
text which was adopted by the conference at the first reading, and I also
inclose a list of the names and official designations of all of the
delegates who attended this conference.
The discussions took a very wide range in regard to the subjects to be
contained in the convention itself, as well as in the details of the rules
and regulations to be appended to it, these being induced largely by the
difference in point of view and the difference in individual interests, as
well as the geographical situation, of the participants in the discussion.
The attitude of the United States, as declared at the outset, was distinctly
in support of unrestricted interchange of communication between all
stations, without regard to the system of radio-telegraphy used by either,
and this principle was maintained by it throughout the debates. It was
evident from the beginning, however, that certain countries, like Great
Britain and Italy, had already entered into engagements with Mr. Marconi
based upon the exclusive use of his system, which prohibited by contract
their right to interchange messages with stations either on shipboard or
ashore which did not use the Marconi instruments. This gave rise to a great
deal of difficulty in adjusting of interests that were involved.
Article 3 of the original text of the convention set forth this principle as
follows:
Coastal stations and stations aboard ship shall be obliged to
interchange telegrams with each other without distinction as to the
system of radio-telegraphy adopted by these stations.
This brought at once the question of the Marconi contracts into the
foreground; and while article 3 was accepted in principle, a vote upon it
was postponed, at the proposal of Great Britain, until after the other
articles of the conference and of the règlement de service should have been
discussed and adopted. The United States delegation, having agreed to this
postponement, gave notice that it did not modify its views as to the
principle involved, and as the other articles were discussed and amended
from day to day in the sessions of the conference, the delegation of the
United States became solicitous lest amendments might be introduced of such
character that they would weaken the provisions of article 3, and destroy
its validity before it could be debated in the conference; therefore the
delegation of the United States made a formal declaration as follows:
The proceedings of this conference have reached a point at which the
delegates representing the United States of America rind themselves
obliged to make the following declaration:
The acceptance of article 3 in the terms proposed to the conference
is, in their opinion, indispensable to the due consideration of the
convention submitted to our deliberations. Its incorporation into
the convention without modification is necessary in order that that
article may serve as the basis of an international agreement.
[Page 1517]
The only objection which has been made to the provisions of this
article is the assertion that the different systems of
radio-telegraphy are not able to communicate effectively one with
the other; and, further, that all well-organized systems already
installed are susceptible to disturbance.
It has been fully demonstrated by the Government of the United States
of America, through experiments carried out in climates of every
kind, that the different systems of radio-telegraphy can be
effectively used simultaneously one with the other. In fact, a
combination made by selecting among the elements of different
systems of radio-telegraphy has produced better results than those
which any one system has been able to give by itself.
The United States Navy is actually using at present eight different
systems upon its coastal stations and its station aboard ship, and
during the three years in which it has been making these experiments
it has reason to be entirely satisfied with the results
obtained.
As to the question of interruption between one station and another,
we have been able to operate without interruption telegraph stations
in the immediate vicinity of others having a different system of
radio-telegraphy, while stations close to each other, although
equipped with the same system of installation, have not succeeded in
securing freedom from disturbance.
Very voluminous debates took place subsequent to this declaration, with the
result, however, that when the convention was signed the article 3 was
adopted without alteration. As it was impossible for Great Britain to accept
article 3 in its entirety without conflicting with her contracts with Mr.
Marconi, it was agreed by the conference that in the protocole final, a copy
of which is herewith inclosed, an article should be adopted as follows:
Each contracting government may reserve to itself the right to
designate, according to the circumstances, certain coastal stations
which shall be exempt from the provisions of article 3, upon
condition that immediately upon the application of this measure
there shall be erected within its territory one or more stations
which shall be subject to the provisions of article 3, and which
shall assure a radio-telegraphic service in the territory occupied
by these exempted stations in a manner which shall satisfy the
interests of public communication. Those governments which wish to
reserve this right shall give notice thereof in the form provided in
the second paragraph of article 16 of the convention, at latest
three months before the present convention shall take effect.
It was agreed at the same time that those governments which did not approve
of this article should formally declare that they would not, for their part,
reserve the right given by this article; and such a declaration was made
accordingly by Germany, the United States of America, the Argentine
Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Greece, Mexico,
Monaco, Norway, the Netherlands, Roumania, Russia, Sweden, and Uruguay.
The principle having been established thus, largely through the determination
of the delegation of the United States, with’ which the German delegation
was entirely in accord and cooperated very greatly to bring about this
result, and provision having been made thus for intercommunication between
ship and shore, the next task which devolved upon the delegation of the
United States was to assure intercommunication, without regard to system of
radio-telegraphy, between ship and ship. Upon this point a particularly
hostile opposition was presented in the conference and for a time the
delegation of the United States stood absolutely alone, the principal
delegate of Great Britain going so far upon one occasion as to declare to us
formally that his delegation would never allow us to carry that point and
that they “would fight us tooth and nail.” However, the delegation of the
United States determined that it would not make any
[Page 1518]
concessions, but would prefer to be defeated, if
necessary, in order that it might bring its proposition before the
conference and stand for the principle that intercommunication must be
obligatory between ship and ship.
As the discussion went on the delegation of the United States began to win
ground, and ultimately several important countries began to show indications
of sympathy with us, notably Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Belgium,
Holland, and Bussia. The British delegation then offered to concede to us
the obligation of interchange between ship and ship in so far as such
messages should relate to the saving of life and property at sea, and the
German delegation proposed that the same proposition should be adopted in so
far as the messages related to navigation. But having once put itself upon
record as the champion of this principle of free interchange, the American
delegation declined to accept any modifications or make any concession, and
it had the satisfaction at the end of a spirited and somewhat heated contest
to find that it was victorious and carried its principle by an almost
unanimous vote of the conference.
This success and the introduction into the convention of a paragraph which it
was absolutely impossible for Great Britain to accept under her agreements
with Mr. Marconi threatened at one moment to make it necessary for Great
Britain to withdraw from the conference, but an arrangement was finally
agreed to by which Great Britain could participate to the end of the
conference and sign the convention by placing the amendment of the United
States of America as to communication between ship and ship in an additional
agreement attached to the convention, to be separately signed by the
countries represented. This left Great Britain and Italy free to sign the
convention itself, and whilst accepting in principle the interchange between
ship and ship, did not oblige their delegations to sign the article binding
them against the private contracts of their Government. The delegation of
the United States has been the recipient of the expressions of thanks and
congratulations upon the part of all the countries of the world for the
benefit which it has secured through the establishment of this principle to
commerce, to civilization, and to humanity at large. The delegation trusts
that the course which it adopted in this and other respects may meet with
the approval of the Government of the United States.
Soon after the opening of the conference the question arose as to the number
of votes which each country should be entitled to have at the next
conference of radio-telegraphy that should be called, the provisions
relating to this matter being contained in article 12 of the convention.
As Great Britain made the claim that she would be entitled to a number of
votes in the next conference, which should represent not only Britain
itself, but also her colonies and possessions, the delegation of the United
States declared verbally that in view of our own widely extended interests
in connection with radio-telegraphy we should also make a claim for plural
votes based upon our extensive territory if the equilibrium of the present
conference were disturbed and any one of the countries represented at the
conference should be given more than one vote. The delegation telegraphed to
you, therefore, on the 11th of October, 1908, asldng for instructions in
this connection, and received your reply, dated the 18th of October,
[Page 1519]
both of which I have the honor
to confirm herewith by the copies which are hereto attached.
The delegates representing the United States at the conference; were:
Admiral Henry M. Manney, U. S. Navy, retired;
Brig. Gen. James Allen, Chief of the Signal Service of the United States
Army;
John I. Waterbury, esq., of New York, representing the Department of Commerce
and Labor; and
Commander F. M. Barber, of the United States Navy, retired, representing the
United States Navy as scientific expert in Europe.
With these gentlemen I had the honor also of being appointed a delegate of
the United States, under the instructions contained in your dispatch No.
513, of the 25th of June, 1906.
It was decided that the provisions of the present convention shall take
effect from the 1st day of July, 1908, and shall remain in force for all of
the governments who have become parties to it until one year after the date
at which any one of the said governments shall denounce the said
convention.
The conference agreed to accept the invitation extended to it by Great
Britain to meet again in the spring of the year 1911 at London.
I have, etc.,
Text of the International Wireless Telegraph
Convention.
The undersigned plenipotentiaries of the governments of the countries
enumerated above, having met in conference at Berlin, have agreed on the
following convention, subject to ratification:
Article 1.
The high contracting parties bind themselves to apply the provisions of
the present convention to all wireless telegraph stations open to the
service of public correspondence between the coast and vessels at
sea—both coastal stations and stations on shipboard—which are
established or worked by the contracting parties.
They further bind themselves to make the observance of these provisions,
obligatory upon private enterprises authorized either to establish or
work coastal stations for wireless telegraphy open to public service
between the coast and vessels at sea, or to establish or work wireless
telegraph stations, whether open to general public service or not, on
board of vessels flying their flag.
Article 2.
By “coastal stations” is to be understood every wireless telegraph
station established on shore or on board a permanently moored vessel
used for the exchange of correspondence with ships at sea.
Every wireless telegraph station established on board any vessel not
permanently moored-is called a “station on shipboard.”
Article 3.
Coastal stations and shipboard stations are bound to exchange
radio-telegrams reciprocally without distinction of the
radio-telegraphic system adopted by those stations.
Article 4.
Notwithstanding the provisions of article 3, a station may be reserved
for a limited public service determined by the object of the
correspondence or by other circumstances independent of the systems
employed.
[Page 1520]
Article 5.
Each of the high contracting parties undertakes to connect the coastal
stations to the telegraph system by special wires, or, at least, to take
other measures which will insure a rapid exchange between the coastal
stations and the telegraph system.
Article 6.
The high contracting parties shall notify one another of the names of
coastal stations and stations on shipboard referred to in article 1, and
also of all data necessary to facilitate and accelerate the exchange of
wireless telegrams, as specified in the regulations.
Article 7.
Each of the high contracting parties reserves the right to prescribe or
permit at the stations referred to in article 1, apart from the
installation the data of which are to be published in conformity with
artitle 6, the installation and working of other devices for the purpose
of establishing special wireless communication without publishing the
details of such devices.
Article 8.
The working of the wireless telegraph stations shall be organized as far
as possible in such manner as not to disturb the service of other
wireless stations.
Article 9.
Wireless telegraph stations are bound to give absolute priority to calls
of distress from ships, to similarly answer such calls, and to take such
action with regard thereto as may be required.
Article 10.
The total charge for wireless telegrams shall comprise:
- 1.
- The charge for the maritime transmission; that is:
- (a)
- The coastal rate, which shall fall to the coastal
station;
- (b)
- The shipboard rate, which shall fall to the shipboard
station.
- 2.
- The charge for transmission over the lines of the telegraph
system, to be computed according to the general
regulations.
The coastal rate shall be subject to the approval of the government of
which the coastal station is dependent, and the shipboard rate to the
approval of the government whose flag the ship is flying.
Each of these rates shall be fixed in accordance with the tariff per
word, pure and simple, with an optional minimum rate per wireless
telegram, on the basis of an equitable remuneration for the wireless
work. Neither rate shall exceed a maximum to be fixed by the high
contracting parties.
However, each of the high contracting parties shall be at liberty to
authorize higher rates than such maximum in the case of stations of
ranges exceeding 800 km. or of stations whose work is exceptionally
difficult owing to physical conditions in connection with the
installation or working of the same.
For wireless telegrams proceeding from or destined for a country and
exchanged directly with the coastal stations of such country, the high
contracting parties shall advise one another of the rates applicable to
the transmission over the lines of their telegraph system. Such rates
shall be those resulting from the principle that the coastal station is
to be considered as the station of origin or of destination.
Article 11.
The provisions of the present convention are supplemented by regulations,
which shall have the same force and go into effect at the same time as
the convention.
The provisions of the present convention and of the regulations relating
thereto may at any time be modified by the high contracting parties by
common consent. Conferences of plenipotentiaries or simply
administrative conferences, according as the convention or the
regulations are affected, shall take place from time to time; each
conference shall fix the time and place of the next meeting.
[Page 1521]
Article 12.
Such conferences shall be composed of delegates of the Governments of the
contracting countries.
In the deliberations each country shall have but one vote.
If a government adheres to the convention for its colonies, possessions,
or protectorates, subsequent conferences may decide that such colonies,
possessions, or protectorates, or a part thereof, shall be considered as
forming a country as regards the application of the preceding paragraph.
But the number of votes at the disposal of one government, including its
colonies, possessions, or protectorates, shall in no case exceed
six.
Article 13.
An international bureau shall be charged with collecting, coordinating,
and publishing information of every kind relating to wireless
telegraphy, examining the applications for changes in the convention or
regulations, promulgating the amendments adopted, and generally
performing all administrative work referred to it in the interest of
international wireless telegraphy.
The expenses of such institution shall be borne by all the contracting
countries.
Article 14.
Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself the right of
fixing the terms on which it will receive wireless telegrams proceeding
from or intended for any station, whether on shipboard or coastal, which
is not subject to the provisions of the present convention.
If a wireless telegram is received the ordinary rates shall be applicable
to it.
Any wireless telegram proceeding from a station on shipboard and received
by a coastal station of a contracting country, or accepted in transit by
the administration of a contracting country, shall be forwarded.
Any wireless telegram intended for a vessel shall also be forwarded if
the administration of the contracting country has accepted it originally
or in transit from a non-contracting country, the coastal station
reserving the right to refuse transmission to a station on shipboard
subject to a non-contracting country.
Article 15.
The provisions of articles 8 and 9 of this convention are also applicable
to wireless telegraph installations other than those referred to in
article 1.
Article 16.
Governments which are not parties to the present convention shall be
permitted to adhere to it upon their request. Such adherence shall be
communicated through diplomatic channels to the contracting government
in whose territory the last conference shall have been held, and by the
latter to the remaining governments.
The adherence shall carry with it to the fullest extent acceptance of all
the clauses of this convention and admission to all the advantages
stipulated therein.
Article 17.a
The provisions of articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17 of the
international telegraph convention of St. Petersburg of July 10/22,
1875, shall be applicable to international wireless telegraphy.
Article 18.
In case of disagreement between two or more contracting governments
regarding the interpretation or execution of the present convention or
of the regulations referred to in article 11, the question in dispute
may, by mutual agreement, be submitted to arbitration. In such case each
of the governments
[Page 1522]
concerned
shall choose another government not interested in the question at
issue.
The decision of the arbiters shall be arrived at by the absolute majority
of votes.
In case of a division of votes, the arbiters shall choose, for the
purpose of settling the disagreement, another contracting government
which is likewise a stranger to the question at issue. In case of
failure to agree on a choice, each arbiter shall propose a disinterested
contracting government, and lots shall be drawn between the governments
proposed. The drawing of the lots shall fall to the government within
whose territory the international bureau provided for in article 13
shall be located.
Article 19.
The high contracting parties bind themselves to take, or propose to their
respective legislatures, the necessary measures for insuring the
execution of the present convention.
Article 20.
The high contracting parties shall communicate to one another any laws
already framed, or which may be framed, in their respective countries
relative to the object of the present convention.
Article 21.
The high contracting parties shall preserve their entire liberty as
regards wireless telegraph installations other than provided for in
article 1, especially naval and military installations, which shall be
subject only to the obligations provided for in articles 8 and 9 of the
present convention.
However, when such installations are used for general public service they
shall conform, in the execution of such service, to the provisions of
the regulations as regards the mode of transmission and rates.
Article 22.
The present convention shall go into effect on the 1st day of July, 1908,
and shall remain in force for an indefinite period or until the
expiration of one year from the day when it shall be denounced by any of
the contracting parties.
Such denunciation shall affect only the government in whose name it shall
have been made. As regards the other contracting powers, the convention
shall remain in force.
Article 23.
The present convention shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged
at Berlin with the least possible delay.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed one copy
of the convention, which shall be deposited in the archives of the
Imperial Government of Germany, and a copy of which shall be transmitted
to each party.
Done at Berlin, November 3,
1906.
| For Germany: |
|
|
Kraetke. |
|
Sydow. |
| For United States: |
|
|
Charlemagne Tower. |
|
H. N. Manney. |
|
James Allen. |
|
John I. Waterbury. |
| For Argentina: |
|
|
J. Olmi. |
| For Austria: |
|
|
Barth. |
|
Frtes |
| For Hungary: |
|
|
Pierre de Szalay. |
|
Dr. de Hennyey. |
|
Hollós. |
| For Belgium: |
|
|
F. Delarge. |
|
E. Buels. |
[Page 1523]
| For Brazil: |
|
|
Cesar de Campos. |
| For Bulgaria: |
|
|
Iv. Stoyanovitch. |
| For Chile: |
|
|
J. Muñoz Hurtado. |
|
J. Mery. |
| For Denmark: |
|
|
N. R. Meyer. I. A.
Voehtz. |
| For Spain: |
|
|
Ignacio murcia. |
|
Ramón Estrada. |
|
Rafael Rávena. |
|
Isidro Calvo. |
|
Manuel Noriéga. |
|
Antonio
Peláez-Campomanes |
| For France: |
|
|
J. Bordelongue. |
|
L. Gaschard. |
|
Boulanger. |
|
A. Devos. |
| For Great Britain: |
|
|
H. Babington Smith. |
|
A. E. Bethell. |
|
R. L. Hippisley. |
| For Greece: |
|
|
T. Argyropoulos. |
| For Italy: |
|
|
J. Colombo. |
| For Japan: |
|
|
Osuke Asano. |
|
Rokure Yashiro. |
|
Shunkichi Kimura. |
|
Ziro Tanaka. |
|
Saburo Hyakutake. |
| For Mexico: |
|
|
José M. Pérez. |
| For Monaco: |
|
|
J. Depelley. |
| For Norway: |
|
|
Heftye. |
|
T. Eidem. |
| For Netherlands: |
|
|
Kruyt. |
|
Perk. |
|
hoven. |
| For Persia: |
|
|
Hovhannes Khan. |
| For Portugal: |
|
|
Pattlo Benjamin
Cabral. |
| For Roumania: |
|
|
Gr. Cerkez. |
| For Russia: |
|
|
A. Elchholz. |
|
A. Euler. |
|
Victor Bilibine. |
|
A. Remmert. |
|
W. Kédrine. |
| For Sweden: |
|
|
Herman Rydin. |
|
A. Plamilton. |
| For Turkey: |
|
|
Nazif Bey. |
| For Uruguay: |
|
|
F. A. Costanzo. |
[Page 1524]
Supplementary agreement.
The undersigned plenipotentiaries of the Governments of Germany, the
United States of America, Argentina, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Monaco, Norway, the
Netherlands, Roumania, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay bind
themselves mutually from the date of the going into effect of the
convention, to conform to the provisions of the following supplementary
articles:
I.
Each station on shipboard referred to in article 1 of the convention
shall be bound to correspond with any other station on shipboard without
distinction of the wireless telegraph system adopted by such stations
respectively.
II.
The governments which have not adhered to the foregoing article may at
any time signify, by following the procedure prescribed by article 16 of
the convention, that they bind themselves to conform to its
provisions.
Those which have adhered to the foregoing article may at any time, under
the same conditions as provided for in article 22, signify their
intention to cease conforming to its provisions.
III.
This agreement shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at
Berlin with the least possible delay.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed one copy
of the present agreement, which shall be deposited in the archives of
the Imperial Government of Germany, and a copy of which shall be
transmitted to each of the parties.
Done at Berlin, November 3,
1906.
| For Germany: |
|
|
Kraetke. |
|
Sydow. |
| For United States: |
|
|
Charlemagne Tower. |
|
H. N. Manney. |
|
James Allen. |
|
John I. Waterbury. |
| For Argentina: |
|
|
J. Olmi. |
| For Austria: |
|
|
Barth. |
|
Fries. |
| For Hungary: |
|
|
Pierre de Szalay. |
|
Dr. de Hennyey. |
|
Hollós. |
| For Belgium: |
|
|
F. Delarge. |
|
E. Buels. |
| For Brazil: |
|
|
Cesar de Campos. |
| For Bulgaria: |
|
|
Iv. Stoyanovitch. |
| For Chile: |
|
|
J. Muñoz Hurtado |
| For Denmark: |
|
|
N. R. Meyer. |
|
I. A. Voehtz. |
| For Spain: |
|
|
Ignacio Murcia. |
|
Ramón Estrada. |
|
Rafael Rávena. |
|
Isidro Calvo. |
|
Manuel Noriéga. |
|
Antonio
Peláez-Campomanes |
[Page 1525]
| For France: |
|
|
J. bordelongue. |
|
L. Gaschard. |
|
Boulanger. |
|
A. Devos. |
| For Greece: |
|
|
T. Argyropoulos. |
| For Monaco: |
|
|
J. Depelley. |
| For Norway: |
|
|
Heftye. |
|
O. T. Eidem. |
| For Netherlands: |
|
|
Kruyt. |
|
Perk. |
|
Hoven. |
| For Roumania: |
|
|
Gr. Cerkez. |
| For Russia: |
|
|
A. Richolz. |
|
A. Ruler. |
|
Victor Bilibine. |
|
A. Remmert. |
|
W. Kédrine. |
| For Sweden: |
|
|
Herman Rydin. |
|
A. Hamillton. |
| For Turkey: |
|
|
Nazif Bey. |
| For Uruguay: |
|
|
F. A. Costanzo. |
Final protocol.
At the moment of signing the convention adopted by the International
Wireless Telegraph Conference of Berlin the undersigned
plenipotentiaries have agreed as follows:
I.
The high contracting parties agree that at the next conference the number
of votes to which each country is entitled (article 12 of the
convention) shall be decided at the beginning of the deliberations, so
that the colonies, possessions, or protectorates admitted to the
privilege of voting may exercise their right to vote during the entire
course of the proceedings of such conference.
This decision shall be of immediate effect and remain in force until
amended by a subsequent conference.
As regards the next conference, applications for the admission of new
votes in favor of colonies, possessions, or protectorates which may have
adhered to the convention shall be addressed to the international bureau
at least six months prior to the date of the convening of such
conference. Notice of such applications shall at once be given to the
remaining contracting governments, which may within the period of two
months from the receipt of the notice formulate similar
applications.
II.
Each contracting government may reserve the right to designate, according
to circumstances, certain coastal stations to be exempted from the
obligations imposed by article 3 of the convention, provided that, as
soon as this measure goes into effect, there shall be opened within its
territory one or several stations subject to the obligations of article
3, insuring, within the region where the exempted stations are located,
such wireless telegraph service as will satisfy the needs of the public
service. The governments desiring to reserve this right shall give
notice thereof in the form provided for in the second paragraph of
article 16 of the convention, not later than three months before the
convention goes into effect, or, in case of subsequent adhesion, at the
time of such adhesion.
[Page 1526]
The countries whose names follow below declare now that they will not
reserve such right:
- Germany,
- United States,
- Argentina,
- Austria,
- Hungary,
- Belgium,
- Brazil,
- Bulgaria,
- Chile,
- Greece,
- Mexico,
- Monaco,
- Norway,
- Netherlands,
- Roumania,
- Russia,
- Sweden,
- Uruguay.
III.
The manner of carrying out the provisions of the foregoing article shall
be at the discretion of the government which takes advantage of the
right of exemption; such government shall be at liberty to decide from
time to time, in its own judgment, how many stations and what stations
shall be exempted. Such government shall likewise be at liberty as
regards the manner of carrying out the provision relative to the opening
of other stations subject to the obligations of article 3, insuring,
within the region where the exempted stations are located, such wireless
telegraph service as will satisfy the needs of the public service.
IV.
It is understood that, in order not to impede scientific progress, the
provisions of article 3 of the convention shall not prevent the eventual
employment of a wireless telegraph system incapable of communicating
with other systems, provided, however, that such incapacity shall be due
to the specific nature of such system and that it shall not be the
result of devices adopted for the sole purpose of preventing
intercommunication.
V.
The adherence to the convention by the government of a country having
colonies, possessions, or protectorates shall not carry with it the
adherence of its, colonies, possessions, or protectorates, unless a
declaration to that effect is made by such government. Such colonies,
possessions, and protectorates as a whole, or each of them separately,
may from the subject of a separate adherence or a separate denunciation
within the provisions of articles 16 and 22 of the convention.
It is understood that the stations on board of vessels whose headquarters
is a port in a colony, possession, or protectorate, may be deemed as
subject to the authority of such colony, possession, or
protectorate.
VI.
Note is taken of the following declaration:
The Italian delegation in signing the convention does so with the
reservation that the convention can not be ratified on the part of Italy
until the date of the expiration of her contracts with Mr. Marconi and
his company, or at an earlier date if the Government of the King of
Italy shall succeed in fixing such date by negotiations with Mr. Marconi
and his company.
VII.
In case one or several of the high contracting parties shall not ratify
the convention, it shall nevertheless be valid as to the parties which
shall have ratified it.
In witness whereof the undersigned plenipotentiaries have drawn up the
present final protocol, which shall be of the same force and effect as
though the provisions thereof had been embodied in the text of the
convention itself to which it has reference, and they have signed one
copy of the same, which shall be deposited in the archives of the
Imperial Government of Germany, and a copy of which shall be transmitted
to each of the parties.
Done at Berlin, November 3,
1906.
| For Germany: |
|
|
Kraetke. |
|
Sydow. |
[Page 1527]
| For United States: |
|
|
Charlemagne Tower. |
|
H. N. Manney. |
|
James Allen. |
|
John I. Waterbury. |
| For Argentina: |
|
|
J. Olmi. |
| For Austria: |
|
|
Barth. |
|
Fries. |
| For Hungary: |
|
|
Pierre de Szalay. |
|
Dr. de Hennyey. |
|
Hollós. |
| For Belgium: |
|
|
F. Delarge. |
|
E. Buels. |
| For Brazil: |
|
|
Cesar de Campos. |
| For Bulgaria: |
|
|
Iv. Stoyanovitch. |
| For Chile: |
|
|
J. Muñoz Hurtado. |
|
J. Meyer. |
| For Denmark: |
|
|
N. R. Meyer. |
|
I. A. Voehtz. |
| For Spain: |
|
|
Ignacio Murcia. |
|
Ramón Estrada. |
|
Rafael Rávena. |
|
Isidro Calvo. |
|
Manuel Noríega. |
|
Antonio
Peláez-Campomanes. |
| For France: |
|
|
J. Bordelongue. |
|
L. Gaschard. |
|
boulanger. |
|
A. Devos |
| For Great Britain: |
|
|
H. Babington Smith. |
|
A. E. Bethell. |
|
R. L. Hippisley. |
| For Greece: |
|
|
T. Argyropoulos. |
| For Italy: |
|
|
J. Colombo. |
| For Japan: |
|
|
Osuke Asano. |
|
Rokure Yashiro. |
|
Shunkichi Kimura. |
|
Ziro Tanaka. |
|
Saburo Hyakutake |
| For Mexico: |
|
|
José M. Pérez. |
| For Monaco: |
|
|
J. Depelley. |
| For Norway: |
|
|
Heftye. |
|
O. T. Eidem. |
| For Netherlands: |
|
|
Kruyt. |
|
Perk. |
|
Hoven. |
| For Persia: |
|
|
Hovhannès Khan. |
| For Portugal: |
|
|
Paulo Benjamin
Cabral. |
[Page 1528]
| For Roumania: |
|
|
Gr. Cerkez. |
| For Russia: |
|
|
A. Elcholz. |
|
A. Euler. |
|
Victor Bilibine. |
|
A. Remmert. |
|
W. Kédrtne. |
| For Sweden: |
|
|
Herman Rydin. |
|
A. Hamilton. |
| For Turkey: |
|
|
Nazif Bey. |
| For Uruguay: |
|
|
F. A. Costanzo. |
