community. Similar conditions have been received from other sections of the country. This one is typical."

That our programs are appreciated and carried in the papers of labor and farmer, I have here a copy of the Dubuque Leader. I do not think it will be necessary to introduce that because I do not think it is a question of a program, because when a station has existed since 1925 and can bring in over a thousand letters a day and build up business around it equal to a million dollars a year, I do not think there is much argument about their programs being good or not. If they were not good they would tune us out.

Senator DILL. Have you stated in your testimony how you think the commission could solve this difficulty of too many stations on the air?

Mr. BAKER. I have a map that I am going to introduce that I think would be a good suggestion of that.

Senator DILL. I understand your argument about the chain stations, but when stations are not on a chain program they must have their own frequency, and I wondered if you had a suggestion as to how you think the situation ought to be solved.

Mr. BAKER. When I get to these maps I will take that up for then I can show you the idea I have in mind. I have here copies of Chicago papers stating the reliability of KTMT.

Here is a copy of the Cincinnati Inquirer under date of January 15, 1927. This editor says that the Federal Radio Commission functions more or less like a press bureau for handling their stuff.

Senator WHEELER. I am going to suggest that we adjourn now, Mr. Chairman, until 1.30 to-morrow. We can then finish with Mr. Baker's testimony.

Senator HAWES. How many witnesses will there be?

Senator WHEELER. Senator Dill thinks there is one more.

Senator DILL. I know of only one.

Senator WHEELER. I do not think we can finish to-morrow anyway. I think it will require several days because I think there are others who want to be heard.

Senator COUZENS. Without objection, we will adjourn now until 1.30 o'clock p. m. to-morrow at room 424 in this building.

(Whereupon, at 4.10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 1.30 o'clock p. m., Saturday, January 7, 1928.)

81217-28-PT 1-6

FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSIONERS

SATURDAY, JANUARY 7, 1928

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., in room 421, Senate Office Building, Senator James E. Watson presiding.

Present. Senators Watson (chairman), Couzens, Fess, Sackett, Pine, Frazier, Dill, Hawes, Wheeler, Wagner, and Black.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bellows, former member of the radio commission, is present, living in Minneapolis, and he wants to get home. We will hear from him.

STATEMENT OF H. A. BELLOWS, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bellows, will you give your name and your former position?

Mr. BELLOWS. H. A. Bellows, Minneapolis, Minn.; former Federal radio commissioner for the fourth zone.

The CHAIRMAN. For how long?

Mr. BELLOWS. Eight months, from the opening of the first session of the commission until October 31.

The CHAIRMAN. When you resigned?

Mr. BELLOWS. When I resigned.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your position before that with reference to radio, and what is it now?

Mr. BELLOWS. I was manager of station WCCO, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and am now manager of WCCO.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you at the inception of this work?

Mr. BELLOWs. I was.

The CHAIRMAN. And continued throughout the formulation of the commission's policies?

Mr. BELLOWs. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a statement of your own that you want to make?

Mr. BELLOWS. I should be very glad to make a statement, or answer questions, whichever you like.

The CHAIRMAN. You may make your own statement, then, voluntarily, and without suggestion.

Mr. BELLOWS. On the basis of the testimony which was offered yesterday there are a few points regarding the commission that I think might be stated, simply to show what was actually done during the opening periods.

When the commission began its work we adopted just two policies for the commission. The first was that our entire work must be done on the basis of the listening public's interest; that the interest of any individual broadcaster must be put secondarily to that.

The second policy was that every case would have to be decided on its individual merit; that we could not make general rules which would cover any large number of cases; and those two policies were carried out throughout the work of the commission.

Our first problem was one of the things brought up yesterday, the statement by Mr. May that the commission very badly needed engineering advice. We fully recognized that fact, but, as you gentlemen know, we were absolutely without funds to employ any technical assistance whatsoever. We did not even have funds for adequate clerical assistance. The result was that most of us went back to our own offices at night and got out our own mail on our own typewriters because we did not have enough stenographers to take care of the mail. But what we did was to secure for the Government, what I think can be easily estimated, about $14,000,000 worth of free engineering advice, because our first step was to call a public hearing on the engineering aspects of our problem.

Hearings were held, were open to the public, and general invitation was sent to everybody through the press and in every way we could to get publicity, to come and suggest solutions for the problem. The hearings were held at the end of March and lasted four days. All together 64 speakers took part in the proceedings, representing, I think it can fairly be said, the best engineering advice that the United States was capable of giving. College professors of electrical engineering, representatives of the trade press, representatives of big stations and little stations, all advised, made their suggestion, and the records of those hearings made two fat volumes, typewritten.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the object of the hearings?

Mr. BELLOWS. To get the engineering thought of the country as to how we should solve our problem, purely on the engineering side. We knew that that must be done before we attempted any work to solve the further problems. We must get the engineering thought.

The CHAIRMAN. And were suggestions made there that were afterwards adopted as a part of the policy of the commission?

Mr. BELLOWS. A great many suggestions were made, Senator, which were incorporated in the work of the commission. No one full plan was presented which appeared workable.

The hearings were taken down. The record is in two fat volumes, and, as I say, it became the basis for the commission's work; and if any member of the committee or anybody else who is interested wants to get the engineering background of all these problems, I would recommend a reading of those two volumes, if he cares to wade through them.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the great problem that confronted the commission and demanded its first attention?

Mr. BELLOWS. The first great problem was that with 89 channels available in the broadcasting band; there were 733 broadcasting stations in actual operation and some 300 more that wanted to get on the air.

On June 30, 1926, just before the Attorney General's decision stating that the Secretary of Commerce had no authority to refuse licenses or to assign wave lengths or regulate power, there were some 450 stations in operation, and at that time it was the consensus of opinion, both of the representatives of the Government and of radio engineers, that there was no more room. The minute the law broke down through the decision of the Attorney General there came a scramble of new stations to get on the air and a scramble by stations that were on the air to change their wave length and increase their power, and there was no Federal authority that could stop them.

The result was that on February 23, when the new law went into effect, all the stations had come on and the situation had been made very much worse by the fact that something like 180 of the stations already on the air had seized the opportunity to change their status. In many cases stations which had been operating under the old law. at 500 watts, as you heard in the testimony yesterday, when the law broke down, seized the opportunity to increase their power and nobody could tell them to stop.

They also seized the opportunity to take a wave length which suited their convenience and which they had been denied under the operation of the law.

So our problem was to deal with this thoroughly chaotic situation and, at the same time, to recognize the constitutional rights of the stations, for the stations had an extralegal, though not illegal, status. They had come in without any legal sanction but they had done nothing illegal.

On the basis of the engineering advice which had been presented by the engineers of the country-and I want to make it very clear that the engineering advice that we got came from engineers representing every sort of interest, and we had a great deal of help particularly from the colleges and universities. They were particularly asked to send their men down, and they came and were fine. We arrived at certain conclusions

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, was there any difficulty about the Canadian wave lengths?

Mr. BELLOWS. There was a good deal of difficulty about the Canadian wave lengths. An agreement had been entered into by representatives of the Department of Commerce and the Canadian Ministry of Marine that out of the 95 channels in the entire broadcasting band six would be reserved, exclusively for Canada. The CHAIRMAN. When was that agreement made?

Mr. BELLOWS. That was made very shortly after the Fourth Radio Conference in the winter of 1925-26. It had been discussed at that time and the agreement was made shortly after that. I have forgotten the exact date.

In addition, of the remaining 89 it was agreed at that time that 12 waves would be shed. This was subsequently reduced to 11 between the United States and Canada; the understanding being that only smaller stations in both countries would be put on those waves, particularly in the northern part of the United States, to reduce interference. The proportion of 6 to 89 was certainly not unfavorable to the United States, particularly in view of the fact that we were in a position, with our very large number of stations, to suffer more than Canada.