THE PROPOSED TAX ON IMPORTED FRUIT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 169, 17 July 1894, Page 2

THE PROPOSED TAX ON IMPORTED FRUIT.

■To theEdibor.) Sir,—Please allow me a brief space for a final reply to Mr J. Fisher on the above subjecb, though thero is really libble bo reply to, seeing thab he haa evaded nearly every point raised in my former letter, and " begs tho question " on the others. For instance, he tells ua tbat" an average of 2£d " and an average of 4^d " are one and the same—tho former quotation (mine) "verifying and supporting" the latter (his own). This is indeed "excessively funny." I should count it co afc any rate if I could induce my creditors to accepb the firsb-named sum as an equivalent for the latter. Again, Mr Fisher waxes eloquent in stating that "arrogance and assumpbion" can never apply to a statemenb "admibtedly true.'' Can they nob? If some pugilistic champion were to suddenly abtack Mr Fisher, knock him down and render him helpless and powerless, and then derisively b»unfc him wibb bis inability fco rise, the statement would certainly bo "an admitted truth." Yeb I make bold to aay Mr Fiaher would consider it" arroganceanda.Bumption"of a very pronounced type. So also, when 1 stated thab bis baunb to fruitgrowers, thab they were unable to do what the action of fruit importers had rendered an impossibility—viz., to supply sound fruit the year round—was "arrogance and assumption." Surely, as in the former imaginary case, the term would be peculiarly applicable ; indeed, I fail to see thab the phrase can be deemed more " excessively funr.y" in tbe one case than in the obher. To all the arguments I used showing conclusively that fruitgrowers were justly entitled to be placed on the samo commercial footing as their fellowcolonists of bhe bowns, whose callings were all more or less probecbed; bhab fruibgrowera had been grievously injured by fruit imporbere, who had filled bhe counbry with pests, spreading ruin and desolation among them, and, therefore, they were justly entitled to have their calling judiciously protected and fostered ; thab, moreover, ib waa essentially a wise policy to build up a healthy and flourishing fruib indusbry, as a means of absorbing bhe surplus labour thab now vainly seeks Borne profibable and remunerabive oublet—on all bhese quesbions—surely perbinenb and vital ones —Mr Fisher i& discreebly silenb, or else treats them as " irrelevant to the question under discussion." Perhaps bhey are so to the fruit imporbor. To fruibgrowers, however, and indeed bo bhe general mass of bhe community, they will be found to possess some interest, bearing directly aa they do upon the permamenb and enduring settlement of the couutry. As to my authority for bhe duby on

apples in the Islands, my informant is thg manager of the Colonial Sugar Company Fiji, who certainly paid the duty mentioned (2d) some yeara ago upon fruit forwarded to him by hia fabher, a neighbour of mine, If, as Mr Fisher states, bhe Fijian tariff i_ now altered bo as to include "all green fruits, vegetables and produce " it redoubles tho force of my contention thab a small im. post should be placed' upon Island fruits as a measure of justice to our own growers. In conclusion, please allow me, Mr Editor, bo assure Mr Fisher thab when he calls Ahe arguments I have made use of " tirade and abuse," he only shows tho weakness of bis case. I am nob in tha habib of abusing any one, and as Mt Fiaher is personally unknown to me, I could have no possible motive bo do bo in his case. But he will forgive me if, ia treating his arguments roughly and exposing their fallacies, I might, evon in seeming, have treated him with disrespect, Furbher, he will, upon reflecbion, admit thab bhe opening portion of his Tuesday's letter adds neither to the dignity of fcha writer nor the advancement of his cause.— / I am, etc., Wm. Johns, Presidenb Waikato Fruitgrowers' Association. Te Awamutu, July 12, 1894. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Before coming to a final decision on any importanb subject ib is righb bo find out the cause and the effect. This, I contend, the Fruitgrowers' Association have not done. They wrongly imagine thab our Governmenb oughb bo pub a tax on all imported fruib. The greab evil fruibgrowers suffer from is the expense of getting their produce to market, and the tariff should never be called on bo recbify that. lam informed that in Canada if the growers get one half-penny per pound for their apples ' they are satisfied. Now, in Auckland at presenb good apples are retailed at4d per lb, which make them more a luxury than a regular dish. Therefore, I advise all those who know the value of good fruib to be up and doing, for if the Fruitgrowers' Associabion succeed in their object, we shall be compelled to buy apples thab aro useless on accounb of bhe codlin moth, and which are only fit for swine.—l am, etc., J. A. Campbell. Jervois Road, Ponsonby.