"A Supplementary Report Covering the Activities in Mexico City of its Counsel" (September 6, 1933)

-3- gathering and disseminating information was part of my job, and asked them why they objected. I was then accused of dealing with the enemy. I told them that I had no reason for looking upon the Latin American delegations or countries as enemies of the United States. One of them replied that this conference was essentially a business deal and that in a business deal it was al?/ays cus¬ tomary to look upon the other party as an enemy and keep from him any information that might help his cause. They then attacked the accuracy of ray statements. I asked them to point out any error that I had made so that I might send out a corrected statement to the persons who had received the present one. They were unable to point out any error, but thought the profits reported for Australia might be more or less. I suggested that if there wore anything wrong with the report I would be glad to send any report which they might prepare to the same persons who received mine. I was then told that they had no later or more accurate figures and would not give them to the delegates if they had them. I explained that in gathering the information in foreign countries I had been introduced by officials of our own country and that usually an interpreter from the staff of a consulate had assisted me; then my report of the interviews had been submitted in writing to the consulate, and by the consulate to the persons interviewed, and all corrections suggested had been made. The two Americans who were attacking me then expressed contempt for the United States Department of State. One of these men objected particularly to that part of my report in which I quoted figures that he himself had prepared and which were published in Senate Document 137. He said they were out-of-date and misleading. I asked him if he could give me later or more accurate figures, so that I could send them to the delegations. He said none was available. I reminded him that I had included in my report also statements by a vice-president of his own organization bring¬ ing the information up to date in a general way for 1932 and saying something concerning 1933. He replied that, since I was present at the hearing where these statements were made, I must know that this official was confused and unreliable in his statements at the time. I reminded him that I had not quoted from the extemporaneous statements of the official, but from the typewritten statement which he had carefully prepared for the hearing. He again expressed lack of confidence in this official. Finally. I invited these men to prepare statements for me to submit for publication in the Bulletin of the National Committee. One of them said that he would do so. I called on the various Latin American delegates and secured information on broadcasting in their respective countries. This has been added to our files of information gathered in visits to 38 countries, interviews with officials of 77 countries, and world-wide correspondence. Several times I was asked how many broadcasting channels wore needed by the United States. In reply I always quoted statements made to mo by competent American engineers that 90 channels were needed but that equally good coverage, or better, could be maintained by fewer stations provided present pov/er limita¬ tions wore removed and stations scientifically located, pewerod, and channeled with a view to providing the best possible national coverage. The Latin Americans expressed appreciation of the attitude of the National Committee in exchanging information.