Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WHEAT DUTIES.

M m EUITOa or the l-at-b .. .Mr D. M. *f?" does not quow my suuc.ko.us &tl «nd his arc J did not >ay that the g<* all the ol the o( bread and Hour; but I <• U> #te 30U,l»0 I aim lies m >o" .it jlv estimate;. jT whirli N| r t'lnsI* fr* . ° between the millers »n<l &f!!rt*eri appear to !>e «urknig f or the wheat-growers in rtf bra" «nd pollard. an,l it the ■ &f ie re*not restricted in Jrf wheat the high prnw ol ***2 pollard would probably noc *?£Sd against the dairymen farmers. Your eorrespondent 4 pi* that the w heat-growers arc *Z£gtho benefit of wheat duties; would suggest that the be conveniently removed to anyone. It is hard whv the wheat-growers , •Swnglr opposed to the abolition thev are not deriving £2from them. I have no prejudice *"f"\ -beat-growers or wheat hoards gffrwlise that this country wil *Jb*o™ prosperous, m n general *** fT uriff restrictions on trade, **Jf «lv tend to make the rich the poor oms. ' K. MORRIS. | Weßicgton, August 9th. 1932.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19320811.2.51

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20622, 11 August 1932, Page 7

Word Count
177

WHEAT DUTIES. Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20622, 11 August 1932, Page 7

WHEAT DUTIES. Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20622, 11 August 1932, Page 7