PARAGRAPH 416-BOOKS. Mr. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, THOMSON & Co., New York, January 13, 1913. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I inclose a carbon copy of a letter that I am sending to the United Typotheta of America, who are asking its members to write you and your fellow members protesting against a reduction of the tariff on books and printed matter. I voted at the last election, as I have done frequently before, for a reduction of the tariff all along the line, and I hope and pray that you will be able to do it, and do it quickly. Yours, very truly, U. T. A. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, 148 High Street, Boston, Mass. JAS. R. THOMSON. JANUARY 14, 1913. GENTLEMEN: In reply to your circular letter of January 6, would say, as a member of the Typothetæ of the city of New York, that I wish to be recorded as one who is emphatically in favor of a reduction of the tariff all along the line and opposed to the United Typothetæ of America taking any action before the Ways and Means Committee on January 17 contrary to the will of the people as expressed by them at the recent election. Yours, very truly, NEW YORK, January 14, 1913. Mr. O. W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Since the revision of the tariff is now under your consideration, we write to state that, as publishers and general importers of foreign books, we are opposed to the reduction of the tariff upon imported books printed in English. We are opposed to the reduction because it will be injurious to the publishing interests of this country, since the reduction of the tariff would necessitate the reduction of cost of production in this country. The United States can not compete with Europe except by reducing the cost of labor. Labor is the chief factor in the cost of the production of a book. The wageworker should be protected from the encroachments of cheap labor. By going carefully into the matter you will find that the American book at present is published at a price so low that the returns of profit are not large to the publishers; consequently the consumer is not paying excessive prices for books. We strongly urge that the duty upon imported books printed in the English language remain as at present. GENTLEMEN: If the duty-25 per cent-on printed books is necessary for revenue, we have no comment to make. If not necessary for revenue, we would call attention to the fact that the great majority of imported books are in the class of "serious literature," embracing books educational and informative. The tax is therefore a tax on knowledge. For instance, we import many books which are purchased by students, who can ill afford the additional cost which must be put upon them in order to offset the duty charged. that every nation makes a distinction as to class in taxing books. We believe PARAGRAPH 416-BOOKS. therefore respectfully submit that a duty on informative books is absolutely unnecessary as a matter of "protection" and is a hindrance to the dissemina. tion of knowledge. Very faithfully, yours, CASSELL & Co. (LTD.), By W. B. HADLEY. G. KLEIN & SON, New York, December 14, 1912. Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. SIB: We understand that hearings of the Ways and Means Committee relative to Schedule M will be held in Washington on January 17. We submit that paragraph No. 416, relative to bound books, has been a disturbing factor in our business, in that classification of prayer books has been made upon basis of material used for the cover. We import Catholic prayer books, which are bound in covers of cloth, leather, and celluloid; the classification appearing in paragraph as follows: "Wholly or in chief value of paper has caused the customs authorities to assess rates of duty on material of binding as previously stated. It is quite true that upon reference of this to the Secretary of the Treasury this ruling was suspended, but from what we understand a ruling adverse to the importer might yet eventuate. For your inspection we send you to-day by mail a prayer book bound in leather and one bound in celluloid, upon which in the year 1910 the classification was as follows: On the former, as manufacture of leather, at 40 per cent; upon the latter, manufacture of celluloid, at 65 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorum. The latter rate is such as to put the average rate of duty on celluloid books at from 75 per cent to 125 per cent. The clause referred to above was put into the Payne-Aldrich law and did not appear either in the Dingley or McKinley laws, and you will be able to see for yourself what complications same has caused. It is our humble opinion that an excess in duty on this class of merchandise would not be to the interest of domestic manufacturers, as none of these bindings are produced in this country. The rate of duty on bound books has been 25 per cent for over 30 years. May we venture to suggest that in the new law classification of books may be made so clear as not to impose any injustice upon the importer? Respectfully, yours, Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, Ways and Means Committee. G. KLEIN & SON. ST. PAUL, January 10, 1913. DEAR SIR: In reading of your work on different schedules of the tariff I suppose you will soon take up books and printed matter, also paper, received from abroad. There are several firms here in the West that print their books and fold them, then they are sent to Norway or Sweden, where they are sewed and bound up, returned to this country, after paying freight both ways, and sold cheaper than we could bind them here. Although they can't print them there as cheap as we can, they can bind them cheaper. I suppose it's the leather question, as I understand it. Raw leather in this country is well protected for the Leather Trust. There must be some clause in the present tariff made for the American Bible House that let these other firms come in some way. Some will say Bibles are an educational feature and benefit the people. Let us print and bind our own books here; and as the Leather Trust or tanners have raised the price on American cowhide alone 6 cents the last year per foot. Why? They say it's scarce. Why not get some of it from Europe and help the poor tanner out? You can verify this by getting the price of cowhide in the Government Printing Office now and a year ago last October. It's the same in all bindery cloth; there is a gentlemen's agreement. I have 30 years' experience in this line as a practical bookbinder and am of course interested. Respectfully, JOHN A. BELLAND, 1764 Hague Avenue, St. Paul, Minn. PARAGRAPH 416-BOOKS. [Telegram.] Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, NEW YORK, January 15, 1913. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Committee of three selected by printing-trades unions to appear before Ways and Means Committee at hearing Friday, January 17, to protest against any reduction in the present tariff on printed matter; if possible, to induce your committee to recommend increase in present rate. PETER J. BRADY, Secretary New York Allied Printing Trades Council. Hon. O. W. Underwood. MY DEAR SIR: I should like very much to see the present Congress abolish the duty on books. I believe there is no other civilized country that levies such a duty. You are of course aware that most books are already admitted free; but many of those of the highest value to men like myself are not so fortunate. The revenue realized from the duty on books under the present law is a mere bagatelle, and it bears most heavily, I am forced to believe, on those who are least able to pay it. Very truly, yours, ATHENS, OHIO, April 15. CHAS. W. Super. AMERICAN CLUB, OXFORD, January 29, 1912. DEAR SIR: At the unanimous direction of the American Club of Oxford I write to express the earnest hope held by that body that the new tariff bill may contain a provision along the line which I am venturing to put into words on a separate sheet. We feel it a distinct hardship that returning American students (including each quota of Rhodes scholars) must either part with their own books or pay a regular import duty on them. We feel that a concession on this point would in no way conflict with the general principles for which the United States tariff stands, regardless of party view-point or differing economic theory. We trust that your committee will recognize in our petition an item of sufficient scope and importance to justify its consideration and adoption. May I add the expression of my pleasure at the hearty support accorded you by certain of our Birmingham papers. Assuring you of my warm personal regards, I am, Very sincerely, yours, The Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD, Washington. [In closure.] C. E. CROSSLAND, Books in the possession of Americans returning from a continuous residence abroad for purposes of study for a period of not less than one year shall be admitted free of duty: Provided, That such books shall have been used for the purposes of study: And provided further, That no person shall be allowed under this clause more than one copy of each work. LETTER OF F. H. HOOPER, NEW YORK, CONCERNING TARIFF ON PAPER. Hon. E. W. TOWNSEND, THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA Co., House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am writing to you, because, as a citizen of Montclair, N. J., I am one of your constituents. You are not, I believe, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means in the present Congress, but I know that you are interested in the tariff question, and that is another reason why I address this letter to you. PARAGRAPH 416-BOOKS. The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., an American corporation, of which I am one of the officers, imports a considerable amount of genuine India paper, which we use in the manufacture of the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In the course of the last two years, since this edition was prepared, we have imported about 2,500,000 pounds of India paper, and the duty we have paid amounts to between $50,000 and $60,000. India paper is not and never has been made in this country, so that even from the protectionist point of view the present duty of 15 per cent serves no useful purpose. From the tariff reformer's or revenue point of view also the duty is hardly defensible, or it brings in no large revenue to the Government. How many others besides ourselves import this genuine India paper we can not say, of course, as a certainty, but, as far as we know, only one or two other houses import it. If India paper were generally used and brought in a large revenue to the Government, it might be wise for the Government to continue that duty as being a tax falling upon a large number and yielding a large revenue; but when the tax falls, as it does, on but few, and it does not yield a large revenue to the Government, the reasoning is quite different. As it is, the duty hampers us, but yields no corresponding revenue to the Government. More than this, the duty is a hindrance to our export business. The Encylcopaedia Britannica is shipped in considerable quantities-speaking, of course, from the book standpoint and not from the standpoint of steel or cotton or other large fabrics-to foreign countries. At present practically all sets of our work for export are sent from London and not from this country; were it not for the duty, many of the sets that go to different parts of the world might be shipped from here instead of from London. It is true that the Government grants a drawback (and we are now applying to the Secretary of the Treasury for the drawback privilege), but, as we all know, the drawback is attended with much expense, trouble, and uncertainty. The same reasoning that applies to the Encyclopaedia Britannica applies to other books that we are planning to make. For example, we are on the point of bringing out a year-book, which we wish to print on India paper. We are now setting up the book in this country, but we expect to sell it largely abroad as well as here. If we could import the paper free of duty we would not make a second set of plates for use in printing abroad, but would print here all copies whether for sale here or abroad. In short, the present duty on India paper affords no protection to any industry in the United States, yields the Government little revenue, and its only effect is to hamper an American industry and decrease export business. I write to you in hopes that you will see your way clear to do what you can to get the duty reduced or, if possible, abolished. We should also like to know whether you think it would be worth our while to write on the subject to the Ways and Means Committee or to send a representative to the hearings which the committee is now carrying on. We should be very glad to do so if in your judgment it would further the cause of the reduction of duties on this article. Faithfully, yours, F. H. HOOPER. THE AMERICAN PUBLISHERS' COPYRIGHT League, Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, It is probable that in giving consideration to the long series of articles in the existing tariff which are now subject to duties, in part prohibitory, the attention of yourself and your associates may be directed to the article of books. There is fair ground for the contention that for any article of general importance for the interests of the community (and this may justly be claimed for literature in any form) if the Government does not need the receipts from the customs tax, or if the tax itself is not remunerative in proportion to the burdens that it must of necessity bring upon the consumer, the tax should be canceled or abated. While I am myself a book manufacturer, I could make, and I should wish to make, no objection to a measure which would free the higher education of the country, an education which is based upon the widest possible distribution of good literature, from any unnecessary burdens. I should, therefore, give my opinion as an individual in favor of the abolition of the tax on books, and I judge that a large number, and PARAGRAPH 416-BOOKS. probably the majority, of my associates in the publishing business would arrive at the same conclusion. It is, however, our understanding and our contention that a tariff based upon sound Justice and scientific methods will not fail, in relieving a finished article from duty, to relieve from duty at the same time the materials which are utilized for the production of such article. A book is undoubtedly a finished article which has involved in its production not only a high standard of skilled labor on the part of various groups of laborers, but the use of a number of articles or materials on many of which there is at present a high rate of duty. The list includes in all 12 or 14 items. Without undertaking a complete specification, I may mention at this time among the materials the cost of which in this country is affected by a high and in some cases a prohibitory duty: Paper, binders' thread, binders' cloth, leather, silk, wood pulp, electrotype plates, type metal, illustrations in the various forms of photogravures, photoplates, photographs, designs by designers other than American, etc. The purpose of the present letter is to suggest for the consideration of yourself and of your associates the importance, if there may at this time be any plan for relieving books from duty, of putting into force at the same time a measure which shall take the duty, or a corresponding portion of the duty, off of the articles which are used in the manufacture of books. I may point out that if the purpose of the change of the tax is the lessening of the burdens on higher education and the use of literature, the freeing from duty of the materials that enter into the production of books manufactured in this country will affect the cost to the consumer of something over 95 per cent of the textbooks and works in general literature which are distributed from year to year by American authors; while the freeing from duty the finished article, the imported book, would affect the cost to the consumer of something less than 5 per cent of the books utilized in the country. In connection with the proposed revision of the tariff, I venture to call your attention to one other detail affecting the duty on books. At the time the present tariff act was under consideration in the committee, I wrote to Senator Lodge to ascertain whether it was proposed to make any changes affecting the duty on books. The Senator replied that as a result of suggestions that had been submitted by educational leaders, the committee had under consideration the taking the duty off of books entirely. I submitted to the Senator a report of suggestions in line with the statement above made to yourself. I pointed out that the publishers, or at least the great majority of the publishers, would raise no objection to the abolition of the duty, provided that the duties were correspondingly cancelled or reduced on the articles going into the composition of books. After some little consideration, the Senator reported that it had been decided by those who were responsible for shaping the bill that it would not be practicable to make any change in the duty on books. It was the case, nevertheless, that without the knowledge of Senator Lodge, and as I understand without the knowldege of Senator Aldrich, or of the Republican leaders in the House who were responsible for the shaping of the provisions of the existing law, an interpolation was introduced into section 416, which was intended to increase, and which as interpreted by the courts has actually increased, from 25 per cent to either 40 or 60 per cent, the duties on a certain class of imported books. The provision in the previous law had provided for a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem. The section in question was changed in the existing act by the insertion of the words "all the foregoing wholly or in the chief value of paper.' It has been held that in the cases in which the value of the material in the cover of the book is greater than the value of the paper, or of the printed sheets contained within the cover, the duty imposed shall be, in place of the 25 per cent specified for books, the duty assessed upon the material in question. This clause was inserted in the interests, or rather in the supposed interests, of certain American binders who were endeavoring to interfere with, and as far as possible to prevent altogether, the importation into this country of books the covers of which carried artistic designs-designs which brought the books properly under the heading of works of art. The cost of these artistic designs, prepared by designers in art centers, such as Paris, London, Florence, Leipzig, and elsewhere, ranges from $10 up to $1,000. Such designs are utilized on covers of leather, or occasionally of silk. The result of this interpolation is to make the duty on books bound in leather or in silk and carrying these artistic and necessarily costly designs 40 or 60 per cent. The "cost" upon which the duty is imposed includes of necessity, in addition to the actual work of the binder, the amount paid to the designer. One change in the tariff act of 1909 did constitute a modification in the direction of greater freedom of importation, or in the cancella |