FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314  
315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   >>   >|  
ed under cross-questioning that there was no written record of these concessions. He spoke of various vitally important conversations and was not able to produce a Minute. Letters referred to were found to have been lost from the Post Office files. Further, it appeared that while most rigid tests were to be required of the other systems, the Marconi people had been constantly taken almost on their own word alone. "Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Marconi both told us," said Sir Alexander King at one point, when asked whether he had had technical advice on a point of working. "You will excuse me," said Mr. Harold Smith, "if for the moment I ignore the opinion of Mr. Marconi and Mr. Isaacs. I ask you who was the expert who gave you this information." Then too as to the terms. The Government had proposed 3% on the gross takings. Godfrey Isaacs had held out for 10%, and got it. Moreover, the royalty was to be paid as long as a single Marconi patent was in use at the stations. Considering that by the Patents Act the Government had the legal right to take over _any_ invention while paying reasonable compensation, the provision which gave so high a royalty to the Marconi Company was severely criticised. Again the right was given to the Marconi Company to advise on any fresh invention that should be offered to the Post Office--which meant that any invention made by their rivals was entirely at their mercy. Naturally enough the question was pressed home whether the Post Office had really sought the advice of its own technical experts. It transpired that a technical sub-committee had been called once, and had recommended a further investigation of the Poulsen System. The report of this sub-committee had been shelved, and the members never summoned for a second meeting. Early in January 1913, the Parliamentary Committee (against the advice of Herbert Samuel) asked for a special sub-committee of experts to go into the merits of the various wireless systems and report within three months at latest. It is not surprising that the _New Witness_ commented on this as "a surrender of the most decided type, for it proposes to do what Samuel himself clearly ought to have done before he entered into the contract." The report of this technical sub-committee showed that there had been a good deal of exaggeration in the first attack by the _New Witness_ on the worth of the Marconi System. If one single system was to be used, it was the only one
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314  
315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Marconi

 

technical

 
committee
 

Isaacs

 

report

 
invention
 
advice
 
Office
 

experts

 

Company


Samuel
 

Government

 

royalty

 
systems
 
single
 
Witness
 
System
 

severely

 

criticised

 
recommended

investigation

 

advise

 

Poulsen

 

offered

 

transpired

 
pressed
 

sought

 

question

 

rivals

 

Naturally


called

 

entered

 
proposes
 

contract

 

showed

 

system

 

attack

 
exaggeration
 

decided

 

surrender


January

 

Parliamentary

 

Committee

 

meeting

 

members

 
summoned
 
Herbert
 

special

 

latest

 

surprising