1. U.S. International Trade Commission, “100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada,” Investigation Nos. 701-TA-578 and 731-TA-1368 (Final), February 2018, www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/pub4759.pdf; Presidential Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, March 8, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-steel-united-states/; Presidential Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, March 8, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-aluminum-united-states/; U.S. Department of Commerce Press Release, “U.S. Department of Commerce Finds Dumping and Subsidization of Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada,” December 20, 2017, https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2017/12/us-department-commerce-finds-dumping-and-subsidization-imports-100-150.

2. Henry Luce, “The American Century,” Life Magazine, February 1941.

3. The perceived need to protect the Panama Canal from European threats and a historic desire for U.S. economic expansion in the Western Hemisphere, wrapped in the cooperative trappings of Pan Americanism, undergirded the growth of Pan Am. See Newton, Wesley P., The Perilous Sky: US Aviation Diplomacy and Latin America, 1919-1931 (Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1978)Google Scholar; van Vleck, Jenifer, Empire of the Air: Aviation and the American Ascendency (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Meulen, Jacob A. Vander, The Politics of Aircraft: Building an American Aircraft Industry (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

5. Mark Wilson, Destructive Creation: American Business and the Winning of World War II (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016); Michael Sherry, The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1987).

6. President’s Air Policy Commission, Survival in the Air Age (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1948); Harrington, Daniel F., Berlin on the Brink: The Blockade, the Airlift, and the Early Cold War (Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961; Roland, Alex, “The Military-Industrial Complex: Lobby and Trope” in The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy since World War II , ed. Andrew J. Bacevich, (NY: Columbia University Press, 2009), 335–70.Google Scholar

8. Aerospace Industries Association, “2020 Facts and Figures, US Aerospace and Defense,” September 15, 2020, https://www.aia-aerospace.org/report/2020-facts-figures/.

9. Other than ineffective laws in a few select states and municipalities, aviation remained a lawless frontier until the passage of the 1926 Air Commerce Act. For an analysis of the multiyear effort to secure federal aviation regulation in the United States and the international influence on that lengthy debate see Seyer, Sean, Sovereign Skies: The Origins of American Civil Aviation Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2021).Google Scholar

10. Statement by Glenn H. Curtiss, May 25, 1920, folder 10, box 133, Manufacturers Aircraft Association Papers, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie (hereafter referred to as MAA papers, AHC); “Imports Endanger U.S. Air Industry, Says Curtiss,” New York Tribune, May 26, 1920.

11. Statement of Clement Keys, M., May 28, 1920, Importation of Surplus Aircraft: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, Part I (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1920), 15–23 Google Scholar. Keys, a Canadian citizen, would become president of the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Corporation in August 1920 and a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1924.

12. With its Janus-faced ability to facilitate commerce and communication while simultaneously offering an aerial platform for death and destruction, aviation presented a dilemma for policy makers in the first half of the twentieth century similar to that of nuclear power in the second half. See Sherry, The Rise of American Air Power and Zaidi, Waqar H., “‘Aviation Will Either Destroy or Save Our Civilization’: Proposals for the International Control of Aviation, 1920–45,” Journal of Contemporary History 46, no. 1 (January 2011): 150–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Statement of Brigadier General William Mitchell, May 28, 1920, Importation of Surplus Aircraft, Part I, 6.

14. Acting Treasury Secretary J. B. Reynolds to Courtland Bishop, January 16, 1907, Reynolds to Vandergrift, June 15, 1907, Reynolds to Lambert, August 28, 1907, and handwritten note signed by F. M. Halstead, all in Case No. 43580, box 642, RG 36, Bureau of Customs Case Files, 1902-36, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC (hereafter referred to as NARA I).

15. An Act: To provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 61-5, 36 Stat. 11–118 (1909).

16. Some in the Treasury Department feared this administrative solution had “no foundation in the laws.” J. F. Curtis to Hubbard, May 2, 1910, Case No. 43580, box 642, RG 36, Bureau of Customs Case Files, 1902-36, NARA I, Washington, DC; Norton to Aeronautics, September 3, 1909, and H. C. Stuart to Secretary of the Treasury, September 6, 1910, both in Case No. 67344, box 1058, RG 36, Bureau of Customs Case Files, 1902-36, NARA I.

17. An Act: To reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 63-16, 38 Stat. 114–203 (1913).

18. An Act: To increase the revenue, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 64-271, 39 Stat. 756–801 (1916).

19. Numerous studies exist on the development of the American aircraft industry, but none address the threat posed by the importation of surplus aircraft after World War I. See Bilstein, Roger E., The Enterprise of Flight: The American Aviation and Aerospace Industry (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Mark Lorell, The U.S. Combat Aircraft Industry, 1909-2000: Structure, Competition, Innovation (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 2003); Donald M. Pattillo, Pushing the Envelope: The American Aircraft Industry (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998); Wayne Biddle, Barons of the Sky (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); John, B. Rae Climb to Greatness: The American Aircraft Industry, 1920-1960 (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1968)Google Scholar; and G. R. Simonson, ed., The History of the American Aircraft Industry: An Anthology (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1968). Arthur W. J. G. Ord-Hume provides a study of the British efforts to dispose of their war surplus but does not discuss U.S. efforts to prevent such actions in The Great War-Plane Sell-Off: The Story of Croydon’s Aircraft Disposal Company and Its Aeroplanes, 1920-1931 (Peterborough, England: GMS Enterprises, 2005).

20. For more on Mitchell’s efforts to establish aviation as an independent military force, see Wildenberg, Thomas, Billy Mitchell’s War with the Navy: The Interwar Rivalry over Air Power (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

21. By 1920, the MAA was comprised of the Aeromarine Plane and Motor Co., Boeing Airplane Co., Burgess Co., Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Corp., Curtiss Engineering Corp., Dayton Wright Airplane Co., Fisher Body Corp., Gallaudet Aircraft Corp., L.W.F. Engineering Co., Glenn L. Martin Co., Packard Motor Car Co., St. Louis Aircraft Corp., Sturtevant Aeroplane Co., Thomas-Morse Aircraft Corp., West Virginia Aircraft Corp., and Wright Aeronautical Corp. Manufacturers Aircraft Association, Aircraft Yearbook (New York: Doubleday, Page and Co.: 1920), 140.

22. For more on the schism between the more sports-minded members of the Aero Club and those seeking to establish aviation as a legitimate business in the first decades of U.S. aviation, see Pisano, Dominick A., “The Greatest Show Not on Earth: The Confrontation between Utility and Entertainment in Aviation,” in The Airplane in American Culture, ed. Dominick A. Pisano, (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2003);CrossRefGoogle Scholar David Courtwright, Sky as Frontier: Adventure, Aviation, and Empire (College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2005); Bill Robie, For The Greatest Achievement: A History of the Aero Club of America and the National Aeronautical Association (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993).

23. For the historical context of the post-World War I tariff debate, see Eckes, Alfred E. Jr. Opening America’s Market: U.S. Foreign Trade Policy Since 1776 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Douglas A. Irwin, Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2017); C. Donald Johnson, The Wealth of a Nation: A History of Trade Politics in America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); and Rothgeb, John M. Jr. U.S. Trade Policy: Balancing Economic Dreams and Political Reality (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. See Steen, Kathryn, The American Synthetic Organic Chemicals Industry: War and Politics, 1910-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Hayward, Keith, The British Aircraft Industry (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989), 11 Google Scholar.

26. For more on Great Britain’s dominant position vis-à-vis the United States in the first half of the twentieth-century, see Katherine Epstein, “The Conundrum of American Power in the Age of World War I,” Modern American History 2, no. 3 (2019); David Edgerton, Warfare State: Britain, 1920-1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); and Winkler, Jonathan Reed, Nexus: Strategic Communications and American Security in World War I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Conceived as “the first great move in awakening the consciousness of America to a fuller appreciation of aeronautics,” there was a certain irony that an exhibition established to promote the strength of the American aircraft industry included so many machines of foreign design. Manufacturers Aircraft Association, Aircraft Yearbook 1920 (New York: Manufacturers Aircraft Association, 1920), 140.

28. Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Manufacturers Aircraft Association, February 12, 1919, folder 10, box 2, MAA papers, AHC.

29. Affidavit of Arthur Johns, June 7, 1919, Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corporation v. United Aircraft Engineering Corporation, Transcript of Record, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Series: Case Files, Briefs and Appendices, 1891–1993, National Archives and Records Administration Kansas City (hereafter referred to as Curtiss v. UAEC); “Buys an Airplane for Business Travel,” Air Service Journal 4, no. 11 (March. 15, 1919): 6.

30. Cross-License Agreement of July 24, 1917, and statement of Samuel Bradley both in Hearings Before the Select Committee of Inquiry into Operations of the United States Air Services (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1925), 226–33, 313. The vast majority of fees went to pay royalties to the Wright-Martin Aircraft Corporation for U.S. Patent No. 821,393 and the Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corporation for U.S. Patent No. 1,203,550 as called for in the cross-license agreement, but subscribers also received payments for “after-acquired” patents based on a monetary evaluation by a board of arbitration. Katznelson and Howells argue that the cross-licensing agreement provided the U.S. Government with a convenient and economical way to obtain access to a vast number of aeronautical patents without the need to defend itself against continuous claims of infringement in the Court of Claims. Ron D. Katznelson and John Howells, “The Myth of the Early Aviation Patent Hold-Up—How a US Government Monopsony Commandeered Pioneer Airplane Patents,” Industrial and Corporate Change 24, no. 1 (2015): 1–64.

31. As Bittlingmayer pointed out, the MAA was “the subject of at least four major public investigations during the years 1917–35.” Bittlingmayer, George, “Property Rights, Progress, and the Aircraft Patent Agreement,” The Journal of Law & Economics 31, no. 1 (April 1988): 227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. U.S.-built versions of the British-designed De-Haviland 4s, or DH-4s, accounted for over half of the 2,541 aircraft that remained on order. Status of Plane Orders as of November 12 PM, folder 452.1, Planes, box 6, Production Division, General Correspondence, Records of the Army Air Forces, RG 18, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD (hereafter referred to as NARA II); “Liquidating 24,000 Contracts,” Aerial Age Weekly 8, no. 25 (March 3, 1919): 1218.

33. “$75,000,000 Worth of Aeroplane Contracts Cancelled,” Aerial Age Weekly 8, no. 12 (December 2, 1918): 610; Number of Employees Engaged in Aircraft Production, Personnel, box 3, Finance Division, Accounts Department, Personnel Correspondence, 1918-1919, Records of the Army Air Forces, RG 18, NARA II.

34. “Curtiss Future Plans Broad,” Aerial Age Weekly 9, no. 4 (March 17, 1919): 26; “Curtiss Company Organizes Distributing Agencies,” Aerial Age Weekly 9, no. 6 (April 21, 1919): 284. Curtiss faced stiff competition from subsidized British, French, Italian, and German interests as it sought to export its machines in the 1920s. See Newton, The Perilous Sky; Pugach, Noel H., “American Aircraft Competition and the China Arms Embargo, 1919–1921,” Diplomatic History 2, no. 4 (Fall 1978): 351–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Xu, Guangqiu, “American–British Aircraft Competition in South China, 1926–1936,” Modern Asian Studies 35, no. 1 (2001): 157–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. The no-bid nature of this agreement and the “monopoly” that it granted Curtiss on surplus American JN-4s prompted calls of corruption from frustrated flyers hoping to purchase them at cheap surplus prices. Testimony of Charles T. Menoher, August 7, 1919; Menoher to Hare, March 24, 1919; Keys to Menoher, April 14, 1919; Exhibit No. 108, Contract for Sale of Material; Testimony of Clement Keys; all in War Expenditures: Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 1 (Aviation) of the Select Committee on Expenditures in the War Department (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1919), 467, 473, 538–39, 542–43, 520–24, 3621–25.

36. “Idle Wings,” New York Tribune, February 10, 1919; “Who has Aeroplanes for Sale?” Aerial Age Weekly 9, no. 11 (May 26, 1919): 527.

37. With the war raging in Europe, Curtiss entered into several valuable contracts with Allied nations. According to Curtiss biographer William F. Trimble, “in early 1915, Curtiss delivered more than fifty Model K flying boats to the Russian navy” and “had dispatched 125 JN trainers and Forty H-4s to Europe” by October 1. Trimble, Hero of the Air, 180.

38. Negotiated for Great Britain of behalf of their agents J. P. Morgan & Co. and signed on November 20, the specifics of this order called for 200 JN-4As with OX-5 engines at $7,675 a piece; 40 sets of unit A spares and 24 sets of unit B spares at $5,621.05 and $4,601.90 each, respectively; 800 extra OX-5 engines at $2,375 each; and 1,000 sets of spares parts for engines priced at $145 each for a total of $3,915,287. It also stipulated the transfer of blueprints for the JN4-A and OX-5 motors to Great Britain. Agreement of November 20, 1916 (aircraft sales), in Curtiss v. UAEC, 21–38.

39. Agreement of November 20, 1916 (aircraft sale), in Curtiss v. UAEC. The Curtiss Aeroplane and Motors, Limited, arose out of a requirement that at least some aircraft from earlier British orders be made in Canada. Trimble, Hero of the Air, 178; Hunt, C. W., Dancing in the Sky: The Royal Flying Corps in Canada (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2009), 28.Google Scholar

40. Agreement of December 6, 1916, in Curtiss v. UAEC.

41. Affidavit of F. G. Ericson, June 1, 1919, in Curtiss v. UAEC. Hunt claims that Ericson redesigned the JN-3, but Ericson himself testified that he modified the Curtiss JN-4. According to Miller, Canadian Aeroplanes Ltd. produced nearly three thousand of these “Canucks” before war’s end. Millard, Rod, “The Crusade for Science: Science and Technology on the Home Front, 1914-1918,” in Canada and the First World War: Essays in Honour of Robert Craig Brown, ed. David MacKenzie (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 302.Google Scholar

42. Hunt, Dancing in the Sky, 285; Affidavit of William Cleland, June 2, 1919, in Curtiss v. UAEC.

43. Affidavit of Robert Bigelow, June 7, 1919 and Affidavit of Frank Diffin, June 6, 1919, both in Curtiss v. UAEC.

44. Affidavit of F. G. Ericson, June 1, 1919 and Vernon to Crewdson, February 5, 1919, both in Curtiss v. UAEC; “Big Business Entering Aviation,” Air Service Journal 4, no. 6 (February 8, 1919): 1.

45. Affidavit of F. G. Ericson, June 1, 1919, in Curtiss v. UAEC; Agreement of November 20, 1916 (transfer stipulations), Clause 3, in Curtiss v. UAEC (italics added).

46. Lash to Flavelle, February 2, 1919, in Curtiss v. UAEC.

47. “Curtiss Sales Force on Peace Basis,” Aerial Age Weekly 8, no. 23 (February 17, 1919): 1116.

48. Affidavit of Edward Ballard, May 8, 1919, in Curtiss v. UAEC.

49. Affidavit of Leroy Schantz, May 7, 1919, in Curtiss v. UAEC; “Big Field Ahead for Commercial Aviation,” New York Times, September 14, 1919.

50. Twelve of the thirteen patents mentioned in the Bill of Complaint were included in the MAA’s cross-license agreement. Bill of Complaint, in Curtiss v. UAEC; List of Members of Manufacturers Aircraft Association Owning Airplane Patents under the Cross-License Agreement, folder 3 box 10, and Patents by Corporate Member, folder 7, box 30, both in MAA papers, AHC.

51. Affidavit of Henry Kleckler, May 7, 1919, in Curtiss v. UAEC. Seven of the thirteen patents referenced in Curtiss’s Bill of Complaint had been issued to Kleckler before being turned over to Curtiss.

52. Opinion of A. N. Hand on Motion for Injunction, July 1, 1919, and Final Decrees, August 15, 1919, both in Curtiss v. UAEC.

53. Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Corp. v. United Aircraft Engineering Corp., 266 F. 71 (1920), U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second District, accessed April 30, 2020, https://cite.case.law/f/266/71/.

54. “Chicago Company Has Sold 150 Aeroplanes,” Aerial Age Weekly 10, no. 6 (October 27, 1919): 201.

55. “Selling Aeroplanes as Automobiles are Sold,” Flying 8, no. 11 (December 1919): 922; Interallied Aircraft Corp. ad, Aerial Age Weekly 10, no. 2 (September 22, 1919), 42.

56. “Dr. Cantu, Caproni’s Business Representative, Arrives Here,” Aerial Age Weekly 9, no. 17 (July 7, 1919): 808; “William G. Ranels Represents Bristol Here,” Aerial Age Weekly 9, no 26 (September 8, 1919): 1170; “American Handley Page Co.,” Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering 7, no. 1 (August 1, 1919): 21; Scragg to Handley Page, November 20, 1918, Correspondence Re: American User, box AC 70/10/3, Records of Handley Page, Ltd., Royal Air Force Museum Archives, London.

57. Affidavit of John Inwood, November 17, 1920 and Affidavit of William Cleland, June 2, 1919, both in Wright Aeronautical Corp. v. Handley Page, Ltd., Aircraft Disposal Company, Ltd., and William H. Workman, in Equity No. 19-16, folder 19-16 (2), box 1003, RG 21, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Equity Case Files, No. 19-16 to 19-27, National Archives and Records Administration, Kansas City (hereafter referred to as Wright v. Handley Page et al.); Cameron to Tudsbery, July 14, 1919, MUN 4/5802, Records of the Ministry of Munitions and successors, National Archives, Kew, UK; Interallied Aircraft Corp. ad, Aerial Age Weekly 10, no. 6 (October 27, 1919): 192.

58. Affidavit of David J. Sandlands, May 7, 1920, Affidavit of Rudolph Rothmund, May 7, 1920, Notice of Intent to Sell, June 2, 1920, and Notice of Intent to Sell, June 8, 1920, all in Wright Aeronautical Corp. v. Interallied Aircraft Corp., in Equity No. 690, folder E 690, box 158, RG 21, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Equity Case Files, No. 690-691, National Archives and Records Administration, Kansas City (hereafter referred to as Wright v. IAC).

59. Klemin, Alexander, “Impressions of the Chicago Aeronautical Show,” Aviation 7, no. 12 (January 15, 1920): 523.Google Scholar

60. At this point IAC had three agents—Fowler Airplane Co. of San Francisco, International Aircraft Corp. of Boston, and Murray Aero Co. of Estherville, Iowa—as compared to Curtiss’s twenty-one, but cheap surplus machines provided a means for rapid expansion. Affidavit of John Inwood, May 15, 1920, in Wright v. IAC; Interallied Aircraft Corp. ad., Aerial Age Weekly 11, no. 8 (May 3, 1920); Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Corp. ad, Aerial Age Weekly 11, no. 3 (March 29, 1920): 78.Google Scholar

61. “2,000 Planes Sold At Chicago Show!” Aerial Age Weekly 10, no. 14 (January 19, 1920): 527; “Civilian Demand Large Enough to Absorb Surplus Government Aeroplanes and Keep Manufacturers Busy,” Aerial Age Weekly 10, no. 17 (February 9, 1920): 617.

62. “Program of Third Pan-American Aeronautic Congress, Atlantic City, May 20-May 30,” Flying 9, no. 4 (May 1920): 246; Report: Third Pan-American Aeronautical Congress at Atlantic City, May 19th-26th, 1920, folder 10, box 133, MAA Papers, AHC; Statement of Alfred W. Harris, vice-president of Aerial Transport Corp., June 1, 1920, in Importation of Surplus Airplanes, Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, Part II (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1920), 55.

63. Pirie, Gordon, Air Empire: British Imperial Civil Aviation, 1919-39 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 21 Google Scholar. Fearon argues that there were over 1,500 firms involved in the various stages of aircraft production by late 1918, and Driver contends that the new wartime relationship between Parliament and the aircraft industry marked the first manifestation of what would become the British Military-Industrial Complex. Fearon, Peter, “The Formation of the British Aircraft Industry, 1913-1924,” The Business History Review 43, no. 4 (Winter 1969): 488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Driver, Hugh, The Birth of Military Aviation: Britain, 1903-1914 (Suffolk, UK: The Boydell Press, 1997), 85.Google Scholar

64. SBAC Meeting Minutes, November 13, 1918, Minute Book, October 1918 to December 1919, National Aerospace Library, Farnborough, Hampshire, UK; Memorandum on the Post-War Requirements of the Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force—Post-War Requirements, November 1918, AIR 1/2423/305/18/33, Records created or inherited by the Air Ministry, the Royal Air Force, and related bodies, National Archives, Kew, UK.

65. Report from the Ministry of Munitions of War to the Treasury, August 13, 1919, 35462, T 1/12370/, Records created or inherited by HM Treasury, National Archives, Kew, UK.

66. Appendix B, “Proposed Peace Strength of the Royal Air Force by Squadrons,” Memorandum on the Post-War Requirements of the Royal Air Force, Royal Air Force—Post-War Requirements, November 1918, AIR 1/2423/305/18/33, and Conference Held November 18th 1918, between the Air Council and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, AIR 1/2423/305/18/31, both in Records created or inherited by the Air Ministry, the Royal Air Force, and related bodies, National Archives, Kew, UK.

67. Robinson to the Ministry of Munitions of War, April 7, 1919, MUN 4/5802, Records of the Ministry of Munitions and successors, National Archives, Kew, UK.

68. Aircraft sales totaled £202,133, and engines another £205,173. Cameron to Tudsbery, July 14, 1919, MUN 4/5802, Records of the Ministry of Munitions and successors, National Archives, Kew, UK.

69. Air Ministry to the Sec. of the Ministry of Munitions, May 20, 1919 and Cameron to Tudsbery, June 26, 1919, both in MUN 4/5802, Records of the Ministry of Munitions and successors, National Archives, Kew, UK.

70. It is worth noting that the Air Council did not consider U.S. exports to be a significant threat. Air Ministry to Ministry of Munitions, July 23, 1919 and Cameron to Curry, August 5, 1919, both in MUN 4/5802, Records of the Ministry of Munitions and successors, National Archives, Kew, UK.

71. Ministry of Munitions to Treasury, August 19, 1919, Doc. 36359, T 1/12370, Records created or inherited by HM Treasury, National Archives, Kew, UK.

72. Air Ministry Order 896, “Obsolete Machines,” Air Ministry Weekly Orders, 1918-1920, AIR 72/1, Records created or inherited by the Air Ministry, the Royal Air Force, and related bodies, National Archives, Kew, UK.

73. This biographical sketch of Fredrick Handley Page draws upon Driver, The Birth of Military Aviation. For a discussion of how the Handley Page Ltd. navigated the interwar period, see Fearon, Peter, “The Vicissitudes of a British Aircraft Company: Handley Page Ltd. between the Wars,” Business History 20, no. 1 (January 1978): 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. Davies, R. E. G., A History of the World’s Airlines (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 18.Google Scholar

75. Memorandum to Mr. Workman, May 31, 1918, AC 70/10/3, Records of Handley Page, Ltd., Royal Air Force Museum Archives, London.

76. Workman to Handley Page, May 16, 1918, May 31, 1918, and October 7, 1918, all in AC 70/10/3, Records of Handley Page, Ltd., Royal Air Force Museum Archives, London.

77. Ord-Hume, The Great War-Plane Sell-Off, 67.

78. Precis by Mr. Cameron, January 28, 1920, 3165, T 1/12466, Records created or inherited by HM Treasury, National Archives, Kew, UK.

79. Ramsey to the Ministry of Munitions, February 7, 1920 and Contract between the British Government and the Imperial & Foreign Corporation, January 20, 1920, both in 3165, T 1/12466, Records created or inherited by HM Treasury, National Archives, Kew, UK; Alfred Nutting, Aircraft for Purchase, March 17, 1920, enclosed in Adee to Bradley, May 7, 1920, Legislation, Anti-Dumping, 1920, folder 10, box 133, MAA papers, AHC.

80. Sales Brochure, “Handley Page, Ltd., Sole Managing and Selling Agents for the Aircraft Disposal Co., Ltd.,” c. 1920, MUN 5/165/1124/50, Records of the Ministry of Munitions and successors, National Archives, Kew, UK; “The Big Aircraft Deal,” The Aeroplane 18 (March 24, 1920): 642.

81. “Post Office Chiefs Ready to Give Out Air Mail Contracts,” New York Tribune, March 13, 1920; Manufacturers Aircraft Association, Aircraft Yearbook 1921 (Boston: Small, Maynard & Co., 1920), 108.

82. “From America,” Aeronautical Engineering, Supplement to The Aeroplane 18, no. 17 (April 28, 1920): 878; “First U.S. Air Freight May be Run by British,” New York Tribune, March 16, 1920. For more on Praeger’s central role in the early development of the air mail, see Leary, William, Aerial Pioneers: The U.S. Air Mail Service, 1918–1927 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986).Google Scholar

83. Kimber Bull to Ministry of Munitions, November 17, 1920, MUN 4/6020, Records of the Ministry of Munitions and successors, National Archives, Kew, UK.

84. Testimony of Wiley Brackett, June 1, 1920, in Importation of Surplus Airplanes, Part II, 40.

85. Exhibit F, Wright v. Handley Page et al.

86. “Why Congress Refuses to Give Additional Appropriations for Aeronautics,” Aerial Age Weekly 10, no. 17 (February 9, 1920): 622.

87. “How the “Surplus” Aeroplane Spectre is Being Put to Work to Produce Permanent Business for the Aeronautic Industry,” Aerial Age Weekly 11, no. 5 (April 12, 1920): 147.

88. Memorandum to Mr. W. H. Workman, May 31, 1918, Corr. Re: American User, box AC 70/10/3, Records of Handley Page, Ltd., Royal Air Force Museum Archives, London; “How the “Surplus” Aeroplane Spectre is Being Put to Work to Produce Permanent Business for the Aeronautic Industry,” Aerial Age Weekly 11, no. 5 (April 12, 1920): 147.

89. Historian Douglas A. Irwin dismisses Republican concerns over postwar dumping as a purely political tool, but Handley Page’s plan to dump thousands of war surplus aircraft and engines on the U.S. market constituted a genuine threat to the struggling American industry.

90. Anti-dumping Legislation, H. Rep. 66-479; To Provide Revenue and Encourage Domestic Industries by the Elimination, through Assessment of Special Duties, of Unfair Foreign Competition, and for Other Purposes, H.R. 10918, 66th Cong. (1919).

91. Copies of Correspondence Received from U.S. Senators and Representatives Regarding Anti-Dumping Bill, dated February 3 to May 1, folder 6, box 133, MAA papers, AHC; To Provide Revenue and Encourage Domestic Industries by the Elimination, through Assessment of Special Duties, of Unfair Foreign Competition, and for Other Purposes, H.R. 10918, 66th Cong. (1919).

92. Duties on Imports, Views of a Minority, S. Rep. 66-510; 59 Cong. Rec. S. 6625 (daily ed. May 6, 1920).

93. Bradley to Gott, March 16, 1920, Gott to Bradley, March 29, 1920, and Greely G. Curtis to Senator Walsh, all in folder 6, box 133, MAA papers, AHC; Martin to Bradley, March 25, 1920, folder 7, box 133, MAA papers, AHC.

94. Bell to Balsley (telegram), May 7, 1920 and Memorandum No. 1: Reference Aircraft Situation, both in folder 10, box 133, MAA papers, AHC. According to reports from the Consul General in London, invoices were generated for shipment to the United States of “six aero engines without planes and 57 aeroplanes with engines” from May 4–11 and another “twenty-four airplanes and two hundred fifty-six engines” from May 12–19. Polk to Bradley (telegram), May 14, 1920, folder 1, box 134, MAA papers, AHC; Colby to Bradley (telegram), May 22, 1920, folder 3, box 134, MAA papers, AHC.

95. 66 Cong. Rec. S. 7584 and 7588 (daily ed. May 25, 1920).

96. New to Bradley, May 14, 1920, and May 26, 1920, both in folder 1, box 134, MAA papers, AHC.

97. Third Pan-American Aeronautic Congress and Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce to Isaac Bacharach (telegram), May 25, 1920, folder 10, box 133, MAA papers, AHC.

98. Statements of Brigadier General William Mitchell and Statement of Clement M. Keys, May 28, 1920, in Importation of Surplus Airplanes, Part 1, 7–10, 22.

99. Loening had inspected the aircraft that the Aerial Sales Corporation displayed at the Third Pan-American Congress at the behest of Wright Aeronautical Corporation president George Houston, “with Mr. Workman not too happy about it.” Chance Vought to Fordney, June 1, 1920, folder 2, box 134, MAA papers, AHC; Loening to Fordney (telegram), May 26, 1920, HR 14368, box 415, RG 233, Records of the US House of Representatives, 66th Congress, Committee on Ways and Means, HR 66A-D32, NARA I; Grover C. Loening,” in Who’s Who in American Aeronautics (New York: Gardner, Moffat, 1922), 69; Loening, Takeoff to Greatness, 130.

100. Statement of William L. Brackett, and Statement of Alfred W. Harris, both in Importation of Surplus Aircraft, Part II, 36–58.

101. Aeroplane Anti-dumping, H. Rep. 66-1088. The bill reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee became H.R. 14368.

102. Hitchcock to Curtiss, June 5, 1920, folder 5, box 134, MAA papers, AHC; 59 Cong. Rec. S. 6625 (daily ed. June 4, 1920).

103. Bradley to Baxter, Jun. 17, 1920, folder 3, both in box 134, MAA papers, AHC; Affidavit of David J. Sandlands, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.

104. Workman to Halley in Affidavit of David J. Sandlands, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.

105. Workman to Ewell, July 31, 1920 and August 18, 1920, both in Affidavit of A. Travers Ewell, September 13, 1920, Workman to Woodall, September 7, 1920, in Affidavit of Harding C. Woodall, September 13, 1920, and Workman to McCausland, in Affidavit of Evelyn McCausland, September 13, 1920, all in Wright v. Handley Page et al.

106. ADC machines were regularly seen at Long Island’s Hazelhurst Field and the Curtiss Airport in Atlantic City. According to Sandlands, on July 12 Workman paid a $633 duty under Entry no. 4,416 for two cases marked ADC that had arrived in the Port of New York on May 25. On August 5, an incredulous Bradley expressed his dismay to Port of New York Director of Customs H. C. Stewart that imported surplus aircraft “have been assessed, duties paid and the equipment released.” Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Manufacturers Aircraft Association, June 18, 1920, folder 10, box 2, MAA Papers, AHC; Affidavit of Herbert R. Walrath, September 10, 1920 and Affidavit of Charles S. Jones, September 9, 1920, both in Wright v. Handley Page et al.; Bradley to Stewart, August 5, 1920, folder 4, box 134, MAA papers, AHC.

107. For more on the creation of the British Wright Company, see Crouch, The Bishop’s Boys and Driver, The Birth of Military Aviation.

108. The British Wright Company retained “rights for sporting use and … manufacture for export.” George Thatcher and Sons to Treasury Solicitor, September 11, 1914, in Affidavit of William H. Workman, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.; Letter from Brewer to C. G. Grey, printed in The Aeroplane 11, no. 14 (October 4, 1916): 581–82.

109. Testimony of Orville Wright, November 19, 1920, in Wright v. IAC.

110. Wheatley to Rentschler, August 7, 1920, folder 3, box 134, MAA papers, AHC; Affidavit of John Inwood, May 15, 1920, in Wright v. IAC. Wright Aeronautical Corporation vice president Frederick Rentschler retained the investigative services of Joseph Wheatley, a former Treasury official, to collect data on the importation situation in New York.

111. Exhibit C: Agreement between Wright Aeronautical Corp. and Interallied Aircraft Corp., June 25, 1920, in Affidavit of Clifford E. Dunn, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.

112. Houston requested restitution equal to four times the cost of airplanes sold. Bill of Complaint, May 6, 1920, and Affidavit of George Houston, May 4, 1920, both in Wright v. IAC.

113. Loening based his assessment on inspections of two IAC Avros at Long Island’s Hazelhurst Field. Affidavit of Grover Loening, May 10, 1920, Affidavit of David J. Sandlands, May 7, 1920, Affidavit of Rudolf Rothmund, May 7, 1920, Affidavit of Arthur L. Thurston, and Affidavit of Peter J. Sullivan, May 11, 1920, all in Wright v. IAC.

114. This agreement also allowed WAC to inspect the “factory, warehouse, plant and office of Interallied and its books” at any time. Exhibit C: Agreement between Wright Aeronautical Corp. and Interallied Aircraft Corp., June 25, 1920, in Affidavit of Clifford E. Dunn, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.; Affidavit of George Houston, in Wright Aeronautical Corp. v. Aerial Transport Corp. In Equity No. 393, RG 21, Records of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, National Archives and Records Administration, Philadelphia. (hereafter referred to as Wright v. ATC).

115. Affidavit of John Inwood, November 17, 1920, in Wright v. Handley Page et al. The Lawrence Sperry Aircraft Co. began running advertisements for Avros that were “formerly sold by Interallied Corp” in April 1921. Aerial Age Weekly 13, no. 4 (April 4, 1921): 95.

116. Second Affidavit of George Houston, July 10, 1920, in Wright v. ATC; Affidavit of George Houston, November 22, 1920, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.

117. Aerial Age Weekly 11, no. 19 (July 19, 1920): 640.

118. MAA Press Release regarding Wright v. IAC, Affidavit of Clifford E. Dunn, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.; Bill of Complaint, June 8, 1920, in Wright v. ATC.

119. Affidavit of Alfred W. Harris, July 6, 1920; Affidavit of Wiley L. Brackett, July 8,1920, both in Wright v. ATC; Aircraft Disposal Company Ltd., Board Meeting Minutes, December 20, 1920, box AC 70/10/36, Records of Handley Page, Ltd., Royal Air Force Museum Archives, London.

120. Denial of Preliminary Injunction, September 23, 1920, Final Decree, January 21, 1921, both in Wright v. ATC.

121. Affidavit of William H. Workman, November 16, 1920, in Wright v. Handley Page et al.

122. The Society of British Aircraft Constructors, Lmt., Minutes of Meeting of Committee of Management, Oct. 20, 1920, National Aerospace Library, The Hub, Fowler Avenue, Farnborough Business Park, Farnborough, Hampshire, UK.

123. Emergency Tariff Bill, H. Rep. 67-1.

124. Peterson to Bradley, April 26, 1921 and Fordney to Bradley, May 5, 1921, both in folder 6, box 134, MAA papers, AHC.

125. Bradley to Fordney and Bradley to Penrose, April 27, 1921, folder 6, box 134, MAA papers, AHC.

126. Bradley to Elias, May 24, 1921, folder 6, box 134, MAA papers, AHC.

127. General Tariff Revision, H.R. Rep. No. 67-248; Pub. L. No. 67-318, 42 Stat. 858–990.

128. Historians often portray the litigation between Wright and Curtiss as the reason why the United States lost its lead in aviation prior to World War I. Aviation historian Thomas Crouch, however, disagrees that such efforts seriously affected early aeronautical development in the United States. The Bishop’s Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989); Katznelson and Howells, “The Myth of the Early Aviation Patent Hold-Up.”

129. President Wilson signed a $640 million appropriation on July 24, and additional supplemental bills followed in the months ahead. According to Air Service figures, these appropriations allowed American aircraft manufacturers to deliver 11,815 training and combat aircraft to the U.S. Army alone in 1918, a two hundred percent increase over the fifty-nine machines delivered between the years 1908 and 1916, inclusive. War Expenditures: Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 1 (Aviation), 510, 518.

130. For more on the path-dependent process inherent within the adoption of specific technologies, see Arthur, W. Brian, “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events,” The Economic Journal 99, no. 394 (March 1989): 116–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more on the use of path dependence in historical analysis, see Pierson, Paul Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

131. For more on the struggle between the United States and Great Britain for postwar control of the global aerial market and the importance of jet technology in that shift, Jeffrey A. Engel, Cold War at 30,000 Feet: The Anglo-American Fight for Aviation Supremacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dobson, Alan P., Peaceful Air Warfare: The United States, Britain, and the Politics of International Aviation (New York: The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Giffard, Hermione, Making Jet Engines in World War II: Britain, Germany, and the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.