PARAGRAPH 416-BOOKS. [Telegram.] Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, NEW YORK, January 15, 1918. 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 PARAGRAPH 416-BOOKS. tion of the duty on works of art. This cancellation covered, to be sure, only the works which had been produced more than 20 years back, but it did constitute a recognition of the fact that the barriers between the American public and the art productions of the world should be lessened rather than increased. As above stated, a book of the class now in question is in itself a work of art. The interpolation above cited makes a substantial increase in the duty on a work of art; it is intended, in fact, to prevent the importation, and it must of necessity have the effect of preventing the importation, of books bound in artistic designs. The result is not only an inconvenience and an injustice to cultivated Americans who desire to se ure such books (and here I am speaking as a binder), but it stands in the way of the development of the art of binding in this country. If the American binder is satisfied with his own present standard of binding designs, he will make no progress toward a more artistic and satisfactory standard. Such progress is made only by the study of and the competition with the higher class designs produced in the art centers of Europe. I point out further that the interpolation in question constitutes an example of what may be described as surreptitious legislation. It was slipped in at the last moment during the work of the conference committee. The fact that there had been any change proposed or accomplished in the duty on books was not known even to the leaders of the party who were responsible for the tariff act. No opportunity was given to those interested on the part of the book trade or of the book-buying public to consider the proposed change or to present arguments against it. It is our contention, in which I think the leader of the House is in full accord with us, that whatever changes are made in the tariff system, or in the general taxing system of the United States, shall be arrived at publicly and after due considerate and adequate discussion. I hope very much that the work of yourself and of your associates will not be brought to completion without the elimination of this surreptitious interpolation in the section fixing the duty on books. I am with much respect, your obedient servant, Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD, Washington, D. C. GEO. HAVEN PUTNAM. HANOVER COLLEGE, Hanover, Ind., January 11, 1918. DEAR SIR: There is published at Berlin by Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders, Encyclopaedisches Englisch-Deutsches und Deutsch-Englisches Woerterbuch, the best German-English and English-German dictionary extant. This is at best a rather expensive work, which would appeal chiefly to such teachers of German as wish to do the most thorough work and occasionally to libraries. Now, under present tariff regulations libraries can purchase this work for $16.80 duty-free, but I or any other teacher of German must pay $21 for it if we want the work. In other words, any teacher of German must pay a tax of $4.20 on this work alone for the privilege of equipping himself with the best tool. There is nothing of the sort published in this country and probably never will be, so it could not be for the sake of that much-vaunted god Protection." It must be regarded as a luxury. Now, teaching is not the most remunerative occupation in the world, as you perhaps know. I have been a teacher of German for a number of years because I enjoy the work. I have felt the need constantly of this work, as has many another German teacher, perhaps some in your district. Thus far the price and the tax together have been prohibitive. So I have taken the liberty of calling your attention to this item with the hope that in the new tariff schedules you and your colleagues might see fit remove one of the burdens of a profession that involves a good deal of sacrifice anyway. Doubtless there are other items of similar character heavily taxed, but this one has appealed to me particularly. I have also written Hon. Lincoln Dixon, Representative from this district, regarding this item. DEAR MR. AYRES: I have your letter of the 16th instant, and in reply will say that when I speak in my letter of the "new tariff" I mean the Payne-Aldrich bill, which came into effect in 1909. PARAGRAPH 416-PHOTOGELATIN PRINTS. The duty which has been placed on the illustrations in question has been raised to 30 per cent ad valorem plus 5 cents per pound of paper, thus making the duty from 50 per cent upward, according to the weight of the paper. Previous to the Payne-Aldrich bill the duty was only 25 per cent ad valorem. The incongruity of the whole proceeding lies in the fact that a foreign publisher is protected in this country and has free entry with his goods into this country, whilst the American publisher is fined with a heavy penalty if he imports from the German publisher the same goods in order to use them for an English version of the foreign product. There should either be the same duty on foreign books containing the plates, as stipulated in the Payne-Aldrich bill, or the duty on the plates themselves if imported by an American house should be removed. This ought to suggest itself by the laws of equity and justice; they are educational matters. I have been paying these high duties ever since 1909 without being able to obtain redress. If you can do anything with the Ways and Means Committee in this respect, I shall feel obliged. I hope that I have made myself quite clear now, and that you will be able to understand the situation better. Yours, very truly, REBMAN CO., FRANCIS J. REBMAN, President. PHOTOGELATIN PRINTS. BRIEF OF CAMPBELL ART CO., ELIZABETH, N. J. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee on Ways and Means: I desire to lay before you certain facts relative to the products of the photogelatin printing process as affected by the tariff, Schedule M. There are only about a dozen photogelatin printing plants in this country, employing in the aggregate something like 50 power presses (all of which have to be imported on a 45 per cent duty) and doing but little over $1,000,000 business. I am asked to represent here the majority of these concerns, namely, The Albertype Co., Brooklyn; Meriden Gravure Co., Meriden, Conn.; Chicago Photogravure Co., Chicago, Ill.; Illustrated Postal Card & Novelty Co., New York; The Artogravure Co., Hoboken, N. J.; Kramer Art Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; Louis Winkler, New York; Taber-Prang Art Co., Springfield, Mass.; Photogravure & Color Co., New York; The Ullman Manufacturing Co., of New York, and the Campbell Art Co., my own company, of Elizabeth, N. J. Their letters are attached to my brief. All we desire to do is to lay before you a plain and brief statement of facts, and without legal counsel or the importuning of our various Senators and Representatives, to leave the matter to your good judgment and decision. The photogelatin process is particularly adapted to small runs of work requiring careful execution in the reproduction of art pictures, book illustrations, the finer grades of post cards, and the like. Strictly speaking, it is a fine art, and the work turned out by it is a luxury. The process is very slow, about 500 sheets per day for one press, as against from 3,000 to 12,000 per day from a type or lithographic press. The cost of the work, especially as a fine grade of paper must be used, is correspondingly large. The process has been in vogue in this country for over 40 years, and therefore can not be called an "infant industry;" it might be better described as a dwarf. Until 1909 the product of the photogelatin press was not even mentioned in the tariff, and the only duty levied on its importation was 25 per cent, under the general classification of "printed matter." Especially in the form of post cards there have been large importations of photogelatin printed matter, and on account of the great disparity in the cost of labor and materials here and abroad the foreign cards have been and are being used almost exclusively in this country, the majority of them bearing the imprint "Made in Germany," and this in spite of the fact that a slight additional duty of 15 cents per pound was written into the tariff in 1909. We were hopeful that hereafter we would find ourselves on an even keel with the foreign manufacturers and get our share of this growing post card business, at least in our own country, but the results have not shown this. During the past four years only about 40 presses have been imported. During that time my own company has found it impossible to make any post cards whatever in competition with manufacturers here |