who led the Rainbow Division through most of the war, and at the signing of the Armistice was in command of the 6th Army Corps, gave it as his personal opinion that the dumping of this surplus. aircraft into the country would place in jeopardy the American aircraft industry. He said:

"I think I can say - and I think I am stating the attitude of the War Department also, on this particular thing,—that it is of vital importance to the national defense, to the Air Service directly, that there should be built up in this country an industry, an airplane manufacturing industry, so that in case of emergency we will have something to fall back upon. As to just how this is to be brought about, that is another thing of course, but I can state now, and would like to state now to emphasize it, that it is of vital importance that the airplane manufacturing industry be built up in this country so that we may have it to fall back upon in case of national emergency."

Brigadier General William Mitchell, Assistant Chief of the Air Service, who was in command of Air Service operations at the front in France, declared:

"I know as certainly as anyone can tell that if this market is flooded with this English equipment, it will practically knock out the possibility of our defending ourselves in the air in war. You will be turning over the key of the front door to some other nation."

Colonel W. L. Gillmore, Chief of Procurement and Supply, Army Air Service, said:

"As I look at this problem of bringing in perhaps 5,000 planes and 15,000 motors of foreign make, we are probably going to paralyze the American aircraft industry. Why, these planes and motors could be sold in this country at a price that no American manufacturer could meet. What would happen to our industry? They would not be able to continue on the small orders of the War Department. . I believe I can see where we are liable to put ourselves into the hands of the British on airplane production if our manufacturers quit and go out of business. Where are we going to turn to for the equipment we need?"

At these hearings, representatives of practically the entire American aircraft industry were present, and stated it as their unqualified conviction that, unless the dumping were prevented, the death of the industry would assuredly follow, or if not death, then tremendous burdens with a small source of supply would be placed upon the War and Navy Department.

EIGHT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS PROTEST

Simultaneously with the hearings, the Sub-Committee on Commercial Aviation of the Economic Liaison Committee made a report urging prevention of the threatened dumping. The combined weight

of opinion of the State, War, Navy, Post Office, Commerce, Agriculture, Interior and Treasury Departments, was thus added to the Air Service argument. The special sub-committee, of which Lt. Col. Horace M. Hickam, chief of the Information Group, Air Service, was chairman, pointed out the necessity for building up and maintaining a civilian aerial reserve in the United States, with sources of supply wholly American. It was emphasized that these sources could not thus be kept wholly American if a foreign invasion with obsolete aircraft were to be permitted.

The Tilson bill was unanimously recommended by the Ways and Means Committee and was unanimously passed by the House. It was known to have the overwhelming support of the Senate, but it reached that body too late in the closing hours, so the second session of the 66th Congress ended without providing protection for an essential element in the national defense.

If the Congress failed to formulate a policy on aeronautics it was not because the country as a whole was indifferent to the necessity for action. On the contrary, the press of all parties, at a time when many other subjects were urged for consideration, came vigorously to the support of the Air Service. Scores of editorials appeared calling attention to the danger. There was little direct antagonism to the English, but there was insistent demand that we guard our own country and not be compelled to look to another for protection.

PRESS URGES "AMERICA FIRST!"

Said the Washington Post on May 30th:

"The Domestic aircraft industry is in a bad way enough at present. It is 95% liquidated. The statement has been authoritatively made that one company which formerly utilized the services of 20,000 persons has now only a little more than 1,000 employed and that there are not more than 2,500 mechanics in the entire country engaged in the production of aircraft. If these figures are even approximately correct, they show that there is ample room for the building up of a great national industry in the everwidening field of aviation. The Government can afford to encourage domestic airplane invention and manufacturers for the sake of preparedness."

The serious condition in which the American aircraft industry found itself, due to the threatened invasion from abroad, was taken cognizance of in the editorial columns of the New York Times, June 21st, as follows:

"Now our airplane industry is on the very verge of succumbing to foreign rivalry and will be preserved for a lingering existence only if it gets immediate protection of the sort that only legislation can give."

On June 30th, the New York Tribune pointed out:

"There is no market for the material in Great Britain, and Canada and Australia and France have enacted laws prohibiting the import of any parts of it. America is the only country where the material can be disposed of. A large quantity is already here and more is on the way, to be sold at prices far lower than any American manufacturer can meet. The arrival of the entire consignment will strangle American aviation, already struggling for a bare existence and seriously prejudice the country's aerial defense by putting the few remaining manufacturers completely out of business."

A broad view, pro-American, rather than anti-British, was expressed by the St. Paul Pioneer-Press:

"Great Britain cannot be blamed for wanting to get rid of its old equipment, nor can it be blamed for seeking to sell in what undoubtedly will be its best market-the United States. But what can be said for this country's policy, or rather lack of policy, which will allow a foreign power to cripple our airplane industry?"

Floyd W. Parsons, writing in the Saturday Evening Post under the significant heading "Everybody's Business" said:

"England has closed its markets against French war surpluses, and France has done the same with respect to the English supplies of war aircraft. America, therefore, now affords the chief market for Europe's obsolete machines.

"Just as a great fleet of merchant vessels is essential to a nation that would command the seas in time of war, so must a country in the future have a large and modern fleet of commercial aircraft to supplement and strengthen its military air forces if it expects or even hopes to hold mastery of the air."

The Chicago Daily News on May 25th inquired:

"Are Americans about to suffer British Dominion from the Air?" On the same day the Chicago Tribune apparently provided the

answer:

"Already all but two American manufacturers of airplanes on a large scale during the war have gone out of business. With such competition from Great Britain as now impends it is evident that even these cannot continue successfully. . . . In the eighteenth century Joshua Gee, an English writer and government official, said: 'We ought always to keep a watchful eye over our colonies to restrain them from setting up any of the manufactures that are carried on in Great Britain, and any such attempt should be crushed in the beginning, for if they are suffered to grow up to maturity, it will be difficult to suppress them.' We are no longer colonies, but the British trade policy remains the same."

The New York World on June 6 declared:

"It is a question of national defense!"

So, too, the New York Sun on June 10th:

"America and Americans want the American airship industry in all its

branches encouraged, not for the profit of individuals, but for the defense of the nation."

AMERICAN PATENT RIGHTS PROVIDE PROTECTION

Although no legislative relief was obtained, the protection which so many men in responsible public positions regarded as imperative came by way of the United States Courts. The Wright Aeronautical Corporation, owner of the Wright patents in the United States, secured a decision, the world-wide effects of which were admirably pointed out by the press. The New York Sun, in its issue of July 10th, 1920, reported the decision as follows:

"The plan of British interests to flood this country with thousands of obsolete British war airplanes at practically junk prices, thus crippling American aircraft manufacturers and, which is more important, rendering this country helpless in the air, should war come, appears to be defeated by a decision handed down by Judge Thomas I. Chatfield, in the United States District Court, Brooklyn.

"Curiously enough the decree which may save the American manufacturers from ruin and the Air Service from dependence on foreign airplanes, was based upon the fact that the airplane in its present form is strictly an American invention.

"The decree was secured by the Wright Aeronautical Company of Paterson, N. J., holder of the patent rights of Orville and Wilbur Wright, and perpetually prohibits the Interallied Aircraft Corporation of New York from using or selling foreign airplanes in this country.

"According to manufacturers here the patent involved in the Chatfield decree, No. 821,393, is the one covering the basic idea of stability in flight which is maintained by warping the wings or by use of ailerons on the wings. Rights to the invention in certain foreign countries have been disposed of.

"Judge Chatfield's decree,' says a statement authorized by the Wright Aeronautical Corporation, 'is interpreted to mean simply that the Wright patent in America is unimpaired by any privileges which may have been disposed of in other countries.

"Some British airplanes have already been used and sold here in disregard of the rights of American inventors and patentees, not only Orville and Wilbur Wright, but Glenn H. Curtiss, Grover C. Loening and Alexander Graham Bell. The British airplanes, although using these American inventions, are doing so for the most part without license or payment of royalty.'"

On December 7, 1920, Judge Mayer in the United States District Court in New York City granted to the Wright Aeronautical Corporation, plaintiff, a preliminary injunction against Handley Page, Ltd., and the Aircraft Disposal Company, Ltd., British corporations, and their American representative at that time prohibiting them from bringing to this country and selling here airplanes from the 10,000 sold by the British Government to the Aircraft Disposal Company, Ltd. It appeared that the first lot to be sold here. was 2,365 planes.

Judge Mayer pointed out that there is no market for all these airplanes in Great Britain or elsewhere, unless a market is created here for these planes, which were, in the main, designed for war service and sold by the British Government, obviously, because they were no longer needed for Governmental purposes.

The injunction was granted because of infringement of the Wright patent No. 821,393, owned by the plaintiff. Judge Mayer stated that "its policy of licensing is fair and conducive to the development of the industry in this country. It has granted licenses to nearly all the manufacturers in the United States." The claim of the defendants that the British Government had been licensed under this patent was rejected by the Court. He further declared:

66

The Wright patent has been adjudicated to be valid, a pioneer and of wide scope by Judge Learned Hand, by Judge Hazel, and by the Circuit Court of Appeals of this Circuit. The validity and broad scope of the patent are today universally recognized by the aircraft industry of this country, which has paid, and is paying, very substantial royalties. Practically every manufacturer of airplanes in this country is licensed, and various importers of British, French and Italian airplanes are also licensed. The defendants do not question these facts.

"The defendants do not now deny title, validity or infringement. On behalf of defendants, the argument is put forward that the introduction of these machines will educate the American public to the utility of the airplane as a commercial proposition, hence create a large demand, hence ultimately stimulate American industry to supply that demand.

"The American manufacturer may, however, be trusted to make up his mind as to what is best for him, and his bitter opposition shows that he considers that if these machines are brought here and, as defendant Workman states, are laid down, 'duty and heavy transportation charges paid, in New York City or in fact, anywhere in the United States at a price which is but a fraction of their actual value,' such importation will destroy or gravely impair American industry in this regard.

"Whatever may be the correct economic view, the fact is that plaintiff is the owner of the patent; that the patent has been adjudicated, that the courts have given it a high place, and that defendants have thus far brought into this country only a few planes, and have not, in any sense, established an industry here.

"Defendants acquired these planes from the British Government with their eyes wide open and took their chances on their legal rights. They state that they have allotted 2.365 planes for the American market. The selling price of these planes is said to be $6,510,000, and defendants assert that the expense of storage and other expenses are mounting high and, if a preliminary injunction goes against them they will lose the market and thus suffer great loss.

"Yet, this was their hazard. They should move expeditiously and diligently, as it has. favor of defendants, and they must rely on their legal rights."

have known that plaintiff would There are, then, no equities in

Judge Mayer then decided that they had no legal rights and granted the injunction, upon the plaintiff's filing a bond for $35,000.