On January 14th, I addressed the following telegram [1] to the
Department of External Affairs for you:-

'Secret.

I have been told privately by State Department of possibility of
Congressional investigation of all British publicity organisations
here. I would ask therefore that no further reference be made
publicly to proposed establishment of News and Information Bureau
nor to Newsom's proposed retention in advisory capacity. I see no
reason why we should not go ahead with Bureau but on my present
information I tend to believe that we should defer associating an
American public relations counsel with it. Public opinion is very
tense here and anti-British forces would welcome any opportunity
of making capital out of any alleged propagandist activities.'-to
which you subsequently telegraphed agreeing to the postponing of
the appointment of Earl Newsom as public relations consultant to
the Australian News and Information Bureau.

I had intended to write to you before this in extension of my
above-quoted telegram, but my recent illness prevented my doing so
until this moment.

Early in January I advised Mr. Sumner Welles (Under Secretary of
State, State Department) of our intention to establish the
Australian News and Information Bureau and to associate Earl
Newsom and Co. with it as advisers. A few days afterwards, Mr. A.

S. Watt (First Secretary to this Legation) was calling at the
Division of the State Department that deals with Australian
affairs, and he was informed confidentially of the probability of
a Congressional investigation into all publicity activities of
British countries in the United States. This information was
subsequently supplemented by a further expression of views by the
State Department official in charge of the 'Australian Desk' at
the State Department to Mr. Watt. Although this expression of
views was couched in civil and unexceptionable terms, it was, in
plain language, to the general effect that it was unwise of
Australia (or any other country) to seek to influence the trend of
public opinion in the United States by any campaign of propaganda.

I was not a little disturbed by the above, which was, of course,
communicated to me at once by Mr. Watt-and I asked for an
appointment at once with Mr. Ray Atherton, Head of the European
Department, which deals, curiously enough, with Australian
affairs.

I told Mr. Atherton (whom I know well) that I was very disturbed
at such a warning on such a subject-as it had never been, and
never would be, the intent of the Australian Government to indulge
in anything that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be
described as a 'campaign of propaganda'. I explained that our
object was confined to an expansion of the amount of Australian
news appearing in the American press, in order that the American
people might become rather better informed than they were about
Australia-and that I believed such an object was entirely
legitimate.

We had a long and frank conversation on the subject-from which I
gathered that what had alarmed them was the proposal to employ a
'public relations counsel'-which had led them to believe that we
were about to indulge in a high-pressure publicity drive that
would attract great attention and by means of which we would seek
to influence American public opinion in a political sense.

I got the impression subsequently that it was probable that the
American Minister in Australia [2] had telegraphed extracts from
the observations of private members of the Australian Parliament,
on the debate on the estimates of the Department of Information,
in which I believe the words 'Australian propaganda in the United
States' found a place.

At any rate, whatever was the cause of the alarm in the State
Department, there was alarm, which I had to do my best to allay. I
explained that, by reason of the activities of Australian troops
in North Africa and the increasing attention being drawn to
Australia over the Far Eastern position, the number of enquiries
from the American daily and periodical press, both to this
Legation and to the Australian newspapermen in New York, was such
that we could not cope with them. Pressmen, photo agencies,
newsreel companies and radio commentators were seeking information
at a rate that was embarrassing-and we believed we should set up a
small organisation to meet this demand for Australian material-and
that this was the simple reason for what we were doing.

Finally, it emerged that, if we cut out the proposal to employ a
Public Relations Counsel, there would be no more comment or
criticism of our proposal. It was this aspect that introduced a
sinister and unwelcome note into our proposal, in the minds of
State Department officials.

I have since been informed that the same type of warning was
conveyed to the Canadian Government at about the same time. They
had been proposing to set up an organisation on somewhat similar
lines to the Australian Bureau. The warning in this case was
conveyed by the American Minister at Ottawa [3] to the Canadian
Department of External Affairs.

Mr. David Bailey [4] has, at my request, been to Washington in the
last week and was taken to the appropriate Division of the State
Department by Mr. Watt. The proposals for the setting up of the
Australian Bureau were discussed and the details of its
registration under American law were arranged.

I believe the trouble in this general regard is now over. I have
explained the situation to Mr. Newsom who was disappointed, but
who agreed that we had no option in the matter and that, until
further notice, it was not possible to employ his organisation in
connection with the Bureau.

I have heard no more about the threatened Congressional
investigation-other than that a Senator Wiley has recently filed a
notice of a bill for the restriction of propaganda in the United
States.

However, as the activities of the Australian Bureau will be
strictly confined to the canalisation of more Australian news into
the American press-and will be on the same lines as offices
maintained by many other countries in America, I have no fear of
any investigation that may possibly take place.

I may say that, even without the advice and stimulus of the Newsom
organisation, I have no shadow of doubt as to the field of useful
and productive work that is available and within the scope and
abilities of Mr. David Bailey.

R. G. CASEY