Two to Two

Yes.

Owen D. Young, Radio Corp.

Clarence Hungerford Mackay, Postal Telegraph

No.

Newcomb Carlton, Western Union

Ellery W. Stone, Kolster Radio

Thus divided was the U. S. communication field last week when Clarence Hungerford Mackay, president of Postal Telegraph Co., finished telling the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce what he thought about plans for merging all communication companies into one unit or, failing that, for International Telegraph & Telephone Co. to take over Radio Corp.'s communication business.

Fluent had been Owen D. Young's arguments that British Cables & Wireless, Ltd., was a "menace" (TIME, Jan. 20). Cocky had been Newcomb Carlton's assertions that the "menace" was a "bogy." Because I. T. & T. controls Postal and because a merger with Radio would mean less competition, it was expected that Mr. Mackay would agree with Owen D. Young. This he did, but neither to the deflation of the "menace" nor the inflation of the "bogy." Shrewdly he said: "If there were no British merger we would still wish to cooerdinate cable and radio. At the same time I thoroughly disagree with those who say that the threat of the British merger is fantastic." Beyond such generalities he would not speak of the British company. But he offered to submit secret information.

Chief of Mr. Mackay's arguments for cooerdination was that it would raise rate-lowering and service-bettering economy. Although admitting the proposed I. T. & T.-Radio deal would mean more competition against Western Union, he claimed to be so merger-minded that he would rather even see Radio side with Western Union than continued disorder among U. S. communication companies.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.