NOT 0.96 per cent, BUT
15 per cent.
To the Editor of the "Norta-Caisa Dairy News."
Sir,—In a Leading Article on the "Superseded Tariff," which appears in your issue of the 18th inst. just to hand, we are told that Chinese books sold by the picul got off with 0.96 per cent duty"—that is, under the old tariff.
Such was by no means the case. 0.96 per cent is as wide of the mark as the rest of the statement that Chinese books are sold by the picul. One has sometimes heard of libraries being bought by the yard, although that is by no means usual, while dealing in books by the pound is decidedly a novel idea. Ake a Chinese books is of special taterest to mis-'This question of the duty chargeable on
sionaries, as the bulk of what passes through the foreign Customs consists of the publications of the various Bible, Tract, and Educational Societies. Almost all such books are sold below cost, and thus the duty becomes an additional tax on Christian liberality. As these works are in no sense articles of trade, they might legitimately enough be allowed to pass duty free.
As to the dut; on turning to the Tariff List and looking up books, foreign" we find ourselves referred to Articles de Menage" under which they appear as free. But for books, Chinese" we are referred to the article "paper," and on turning to that we are further referred to the article stationery" under which we find that imported foreign paper is duty free. From. this it would appear that, according to the Tariff, foreigners' books printed on foreign Tanguage in which they happened to be paper ought to be free. The particular printed could make no difference to the principle.
But under the heading of paper, first quality, Chinese" we find it stated that "books circulated by missionaries, or dealt in by ordinary Chinese booksellers are to pay duty." They are classed as first quality native paper, and the rate is seven mace per picul. As a matter of fact, the books in question are printed on imported paper, and are not native paper all. Further, bulk for bulk, the foreign article is three times the weight of the native. However, it is not always easy to classify things correctly. When authority lays it dow the railway porter said, that "cats is dogs, and rabbits is dogs, but a tortoise is a insect," who dares gainsay it Chinese books have therefore been levied on at the rate of seven mace picul. But as they are not an article of export—they are simply sent from ut to port—there is the further import half duty to be paid, which makes the sum of Tls. 1.05 per picul, or say $1.50. Now the present value of a picul of foreign paper, such as is used for printing Chinese oaks on, is in round figures 810—and just now' paper is dear—so the actual Ghange under the old tariff works out, not at 0.96 per cent, but at 15 per cent ad valorem.
Further, since the new regulations came in force, the paper itself has to pay an import duty of five per cent, so that ically 20 por cent is now being levied ionaty publications. On purely hooks nothing is levied, for the simple reason that the native bookseller hardly ever troubles the foreign Customs. Chinese books pass duty free at all the native Custom stations in the empire, and therefore they mainly travel by junk.
It would be well if the friends in Shanghai, who are interested in this matt. could have it brought before the Commis-now about tosit. A tax on books is tax on knowledge, which in all civilised couitriee is made as free as possible. The Chinese Government itself has never taxed books. In these days, when foreign learning will be in great demand books should be as lightly burdened as possible.
If the former arrangement of charging duty on the books, but passing the paper free could be reversed, and the duty charged on the paper only, while the books pass free, it would be fairer. To charge on both paper and books, as at present, practically amounts to levying duty on the same thing twice over. It is not as if the tinting increased the value of the paper. Snprinted paper has a definite commercial value, but as printed up into missionary publications it has only a nominal value. At all events, it should be seen to that, in the new tariff, these Chinese books—being in the main missionary publications—are not to pay more than the authorised five per cent ad valorem as estimated, say, on the catalogue prices of a picul obtained from any of the Societies in Shanghai.
Tam, ete., Hankow, 23rd November.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.