MR LEVESTAM ON THE PRICE OF HOPS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXII, Issue 86, 13 April 1888, Page 2

MR LEVESTAM ON THE PRICE OF HOPS.

Co the Editor of the " Evening Mail." Sib, — Without attempting to discu»s fvithin the limi's of a short lslter the general question of Freetrado v. Protection, I should bo glad if you would allow me to say a word ar two on the special point raised hy Mr Levestam in his letter to you. Tho " faPe premiss" whioh "tacitly" lies at the back of Mr L("v»sam's argument is that whatever follows Protection must bo caused by it, and th»t there can be no other causes at work tending to the same result. As te tho first part of this assumption its absurdity will bo made plain even to Mr Levestam by pointing out that on precisely tbe same principle we should be justified in saying that night is the causa of the day, or (hat Protection in the United State* was the cause of Her Majesty's Jubilee ; for dow net day follow night f and hae nob h«r M»j«s»y'e Jobil-e followed Protection in the United States ? As to the second part of the assumption, which is of count vary oloeely cooneoted with the first I would put this question to Mr Levestam : — His studies in logic have at any rate given him sufficient acquaintance with rs terminology to know the meaning of the word " premies"; have they been carried far enough to convince him that there is i-uoh a thing as a "Plurality of Causes," f But, to quit thins* subtle technicalities which Mr Ir-vestam finds mere oong.nial than I do, it is really &m*s_.lng that any sane man can suppesa that such a result as the price of an article of commerce is determined by a single and definite cause, Indeed, I would challenge Mr Lsvestam to point out one eitigla fact in the * hole range of political, economical, and social pbenomina which is so determined. With reference to hops in particular, I would nuggest that the nature ef the sneson", the cost ff transport, rhe demand for beer, tbe rate of wages are some among the meny causes bosides the import dnty whioh mu»t affect their price If all these causes tend to cheaper hope, it may well be that the effect, of the duty in rai»i*-g the price may not Appear at all; and the most we can say of it, and all that I understood you Sir, to say, is that, other things being equal, this daty tends to increase the price. Tbat a force can only be measured by its tendency and not by is vieible result is a principle familiar enough no doubt to Mr Levc Btam in mech»nice ; at,d wr.y should he not beli»vo it operates in tbe 6phere of economies also?— a sphere which I remark in pasting fteems very un-familif-t to him, sit.ee h* commits twice over the puerile blunder of confusing price and valu», and actually claims it as a triumph for Protection that ib haß " decreased the value ' of hopa 1 Anether interesting point in Mr Levestam's letter is that the article he has chosen for his test case seems to be one especially liable to great fluctuations in price. Thus, the price of English hops between 1854 and 1880 ranged from 170b per owt to 45s per cwt, and these extreme prices ocourred in years as near together as 1854 and 1859. Does Mr Levestam suppose that Protection intervened between '54 and '59 to bring the prioe down? Or that the enormous rise to 185s per cwt in 1882 was due to the further removal of any Protection dutieß? Or will he admit that other causes besides the tariff have influenced the price of hops in England, and that therefore their price may legitimately be expected to vary in New Zealand, independently of Protection? Apologising for taking up so much of your space in pointing out blunders unworthy, I will not say of a legislator, nor even of a man of sense, but of an ordinarily intelligent eohool-boy. I am. &c, Not an M.H.Ii.