The following letter appears in the Daily Press of the Sti instant Sm,—I have read with much interest the article in the North-China Herald of the 19th June last on the present state of affairs in South Formosa with reference to the recent attempt of H.E. the Governor to impose certain restrictions on trade under transit pass. Whilst fully recoguising the extensive acquaintance with For nuosan affairs shown in the article mei tioned, I think it arnly right to give publicity to one or two points on which in my opinion the information of your contemporary appears to be somewhat defective, It is stated, '<The Governor had no intention of re-establishing the camphor monopoly." Now your valued paper (in an article the date of which escapes my memory) distinctly states that the Governor has sold the camphor monopoly to Count Butler, " gentleman in his employ. Whether this is a bund side sale or merely a coleurable transaction I have of course no means of ascertaining here, but the statement itself is confirmed by letters from the north of the island, with the addition that the Imperial Maritime Customs there had been instructed by the Governor tu pass no camphor except that belonging to the monopolists, and that in obedience to these injunctions certain camphor, the property of a foreign firm, had actually been detained. Copies of notiteations and. structions issued by the local authorities in Central Formosa are from time to time sent down here by the Chinese employed by foreign firms to obtain camphor in those districts. The tenor of these is to forbid the people to boil camphor for foreigners under pain of severe punishment, Phe distilleries are to be closed and the atorchouses shut up, and these latter are invariably designated as "illicit" in con-motion to the Government store-"The people are warned that they must pay likin and a further tax of $3 per picul on the camphor, which latter tax is to go towards the expenses of pacifying the savages, No notice whatever is taken of their being in foreign employ. Unless they pay these taxes the camphor will be confiscated, and those in whose possession it is found will be severely punished. Now, as foreigners are exercising an " undoubted and indisputable treaty right" in engaging in the camphor trade under transit pass with a view of avoiding all "squeezes" of the nature described, it certainly does seem as if the Governor or his subordinates were attempting to hamper them in their endeavours to take a fair share in the trade, and if the news from the north as to the re-establishment of the monopoly jo correct the reason is pretty evident, As to the unwillingness to share in the expense of improvements, the foreign community in South Formosa several years ago were agreeable to contribute very largely, and quite recently have stated their readiness to take a share in improvements calculated to benefit trade at the southern pu It is quite true as regards the barrier question" that the terms "first barrier and last barrier" as employed in tariff Rule VILL have a distinctly technical sense, but I have always understood that "first barrier" simply meant the first barrier that the goods happened to pass on their way down to the port of shipment and it seems highly improbable that it was intended that' the Chinese authorities should be empowered to force goods to proceed by some particular route, past some particular barrier which they chose to designate as their first barrier." As to the prevention of smuggling, the Guvernor is no doubt justified in taking all due precautions provided they are not necessarily harassing and are beneficial to the revenue, These rules, however, are harassing in the extreme and I am certain in no way benefit the revenue. They apply only to trade under transi pass, which trade can only be carried on by foreign merchants, who could not evade the transit duties even if there were not a barrier in the country, as they cannot export their produce from the treaty-port until the transit duty has been paid.
The statement your contemporary makes as to all the caniphor brought to Anping during the past six years having come vid Changhua and Lokkiang is slightly misleading and only partly correct. During the early part of that period there were no foreigners engaged in the trade and what little camphor was exported was brought down to Anping by Chinese. As there was then no likin it is not uow pos sible to trace the route by which it came, as there were no barriers to pass. In 1886 the government monopoly was reinstated just at the time when a foreign firm here commenced to engage in the trade. This firm at first only worked in one district, Shuitilind and the voarest route from there to Anping being vid Changhua and Lokkiang, their camphor was brought down that way. Later on they moved into other districts, further south of Changhua, and then the camphor came vid Pungkung, roiding Changhua altogether: the dif ference in cost of carriage would be something like $3 per picul, not counting loss of time if forced to take the route rid Changhua. Asa matter of fact, the Changhua-Lokkiang route would never be used except for produce from the districts in the immediate vicinity of Chang-hua, North of these camphor would go either cid Soché, Oulang, or Yaikah to Tamsui; South, either vid Pungkeng or Po-testi to Anping. If merchants were compelled to take the route which H.E. has endeavoured to prescribe, the campler trade would be impossible and would col-Jnpse at once, and who but the monopolists would reap the benefit?—T remain, Sir, yours faithfully, Tre Taiwanfoo, 25th July, 1890.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.