“SCIENTIFIC” TARIFFS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17263, 2 September 1916, Page 14

“SCIENTIFIC” TARIFFS.

TO THE EDIT OK.' Sir,—lll tho setting out of my letter you make my request “ I again ask your three correspondents to face this question squarely ” apply to what fellows, instead of, us I intended, to what precedes, the sentence. 1- am particularly anxious that they should deal with the point I have raised as to protection either killing .exports, cr raising overson freights.—Thanking anticipation.—f am, etc., 1 - ANTI-TARIFF.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—At “ Anti-Tariff’s ” ~ request and with your permission, I would like to re-write the paragraphs which 1 confess as printed arc a bit involved. Regarding paragraph commencing “ Protected Victoria’s population,” this was intended to convey _ the information that tho protected State of Victoria hod a population of 15.65 to ihe square mile, whilst New South Wales’ population was only 5.74 to the square mile, and to ask “ Anti-Tariff ” which was preferable. •. The paragraph commencing As recrards reasons,” referred to “ AntiTariff’s ” statement “ that tariffs cannot increase employment in factories as a whole, for the" reasons that protection in 'one industry reacts disastrously upon another.” “Protect sugar,”" he says, “and you injure tho confectionery arid jam industry.” My. letter should have read, “if by protecting sugar you injure the confectionery and jam trade then the logical cure is to protect tho confectionery and jam trade.” I havo no timo, at the moment. to go further into “AntiTariff's” “fresh matter,” but I would like to suggest that if he would, instead of giving a comparison of the output per mail give the comparison of the value added to the material cost, it would he a better comparison, as material in highly specialised factories often means partially manufactured goods.—l am, etc., COSMO . '