Sysreat or Taxatiox:—Tho first paragraph of this preamble states that "the system of levying likin and other dues on goods at the place of production, in transit, and at destination jures the interests of trade. trine is undoubtedly true.
Sir James Mackay logically follows it up by making the Chinese Government declare in the next clause that they "hereby undertake to discard completely those means of raising revenue." Unfortunately in latei paragraphs the British Commissioner completely vitiates the results reached, by providing for a "limitation," and his "limitation" enacts laws for the levying of taxes "at the place of production, in transit and at destination," as will appear from the following references.
Section 6, paragraph one, describes how taxes and dues on salt "shall be collected place of production."
Section 2, paragraph 5, provides f the levying of taxes on goods "in transi when it says, "native produce when transported (i.e. while in transit'), from one place to another in the interior shall, on arrival at the first native Custom House after leaving the place of production, pay duty." And further, goods are to pa taxes "at destination," as is provided in the paragraphs levying the new tax, which is called the Consumption Tax, so that while in the preliminary statement all) these methods of levying taxes are condemned, provision is made in succeeding paragraphs for the levying of all three inds!
Moubtedly it would be well, if it were sible, to conduct trade without any Eind of taxation at all, but modern requirements of Government leave us no} alternative; taxes must be paid by all classes of people and in every nation under foreign goods "in transit" and has per-nitted a much heavier tax to be levied at the port of entry, and has given no suffi cient assurance that foreign goods will not be further taxed in the interior.
Tne Suntax:—The Tientsin Treaty permitted many foreign goods to be imported into China and freely circulated without the payment of any duty at all. It further provided that all other goods could be imported and circulated freely hin the Treaty Ports upon the payment of 5 per cent import duty, and further that these same goods could be re-distributed to any part of the Chinese Empire upon the payment of one additional duty or surtax of 25 per cent, making the outside charge of 7} per cent: Sir James Mackay has by his Treaty increased the charges on British imports from a maximum 7 per cent to a uniform 12} per cent; that is to say, he has doubled the import duty and left' the original surtax of 25 per cent, and for this increase ho has obtained ho corresponding benefit to British trade. One's first objection, then, to this article, is the amount of the surtax.
Let it be considered that under the Tientsin Treaty above alluded to, Ist. A long list of foreign products could be imported free of duty.
Qnd. All other products could be imported upon the payment of 5 per cent, after which they were permitted to circulate without further charge in the ports and over a considerable portion of the Empire, particularly the North, and, Brd. In the other parts of the Chinese Empire, not included in the above, all foreign goods could circulate freely upon the payment of an additional 23 per cent.
If one strikes a fair average between j the goods imported free, those paying 5 per cent and those subject to a maximum charge of 7} per cent, it might be said that the average payment would not be more than 6 per cent, covering all foreign imports circulating over every part of the Chinese Empire.
It will be scon from this that the Mackay Treaty more than doubles the total volume of charges on British goods.
Objectors may state that British goods were subject to all kinds of other charges in the interior. For the sake of the argument I permit this objection to pass without challenge, but reply that these dues were entirely illegal and should not be included in our calculation, for it is evident if the British Government had held China to the strict observance of its Treaty obligations goods would have trave elled" freely everywhere, bearing only the charges legally laid down in the Treaties. The British Government, how-exer, did not secure to the commerce of its merchants that protection which every Britisher expects to obtain. It is a strange position for the British Government to base an argument upon the nonobservance by China of Treaty obligations and to state in effect, " We believe British commerce to be subject to much more than a 5 per cent or 7} per cent charge and, owing to illegal exactions formerly levied, British commerce will be better off by now paying 125 per cent and getting rid of such illegal charges." This position 1s obviously wrong from the very start. Io is an evidence of weakness to allow Uhina to exact double charges on british goods as a result of a long period of nou-vuservance of the Lreaty. in the next place there is no security whatever (nae british guans will not be subject in tue future to turtler taxation and illegal charges im the ulterior under this new dreary im a worse form than has obtained at any tune in the past.
is, on the other bund, the British Government seeks to reunburse China for amount of taxation on British goods to which it is entitled it is obvious that 73 pet _cent would be an outside figure, aus if 74 per cent were granted to China on condition that British goods were \uereailer free to circulate in any form iw any part or the Chinese Empire without further tax, direct or indirect, such 4 tax, 1 say, would be a most liberal convession to China and would yield her far more than she is now entitled to by existig Lreaues. the surtax, therefore, is tur higher than the circumstances of the case require. China is being treated with, Uumeried generosity and consideration, hue the British merchant has no reares whatever.
is reported that the Foreign Office, when considering the objections offered to the 42} per cent uuport duty, dismussed them on the ground that in other nations such a tax would be considered moderate and there was, therefore, no reas son why China should not have the same.
Jo is more than passing strange that a Government like tue ssritish, which has through years been pledged to a free trade policy, should fetter a Government like China with a protectionist tariff, and at the same time raise a barrier against its own commerce. If tree trade has made Britain great, or to put it in another way, if Britau has prospered under the reg une of tree trade, by what method of argument can Great Britain pose as a friend to China and at the same time compel her to adopt a policy which she herself jhas rejected Nur first claim then should be for the reduction of the import duty of 124 per cent to say 7} per cent as a maximum, Let us now proceed to the examination of the various sections of this Article.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.