CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXII, Issue 85, 12 April 1888, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

4 I To THB ECITOB 0* XHB "EvUWNft MaOi." Sib,— l must admit that yoa are very "ngenious. Ton say that you do not know ."-'•; what I mean. Yon want to lead me off the scent, by saying that I charged you with giving another reason for the decline of hops. That is one way of putting it, only it does not happen to be the right way. Allow me to state the case. Yoa wrote a leading article in which yoa based your argument upon a certain premiss, namely, that the „ . oonsnmor mast pay an increased price for all thoee goods that are protected by tariff, I • demurred to this proposition and said, "If ' then I prove that some protected gooda have decreased io value, notwithstanding the imposition of a protective doty, I prove the lallaoy of yoar premiss. " Yoa replied to the following effeot, that hopß ought not to be inolnded in the olasa of goods that are in- ■,■ creased in price by a protective tariff, and you gave other reasons to show why the price of hops had not increased under protection, I gave hops as an instance to prove that all goods do not increase in price if protected. Yoa thus chang d your argument and tacitly admitted the f .I'acy, as fsr as bopß are concerned, of your former premrs, that aU proteoted goods increase in price. But you seem to imply that with thiß exception the premiss is valid, for you ask triumphantly, "Dots Mr Leveatam mean to imply that ploughs, for instanoe, would fall in prioo if they wero protected 1 " [ answered I thought bo, and gave my reason for thinking so. And what did you reply ? Did yoa ev?n attempt to show the fallacy of my reasoning? No fir, you sud nothing And thus confirm my farmer impre'sion, that yon have tacitly admitted that yon had : argaed from a falee premiss. I am, &0., H. A. Leybstam.