PROTECTIONIST FALLACIES.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXIII, Issue 275, 6 December 1899, Page 3

PROTECTIONIST FALLACIES.

To the Editor of " The Eveninu Mail.' Sir — The way you wriggle from the various points at issue is very amusing. Let mo once more state that from the'various prices f^ivon to me by several booioellers, the average price the average man in thia town pays for bootsandslnies is 12a to 14a per pair, not as you said, " The least a New Zealander pays for a, pair of decent boots is sixteen or seventeen shillings. The average is more like a pound." The people of Nelson know what they pay for their boots, and I feel Htire that their verdict would be against your assertion. [Repetition is not argument.—Ed. N.E.M.] Now for your contention. You say, "As to the fallacy that the- wearers of New Zealand manufactured boots do not pay the duty, any learner in fiscal politics knows that the essentialaim of protection is to bring up the price of local manufactures to the price of the analogous imported article, plus the duty. Therefore the wearer of New Zealand made boots practically pays the duty, just as if he had bought imported boots. My answer to you 13 that several years ago large quantities of Nelson-grown hops were sold here at 4Jd per lb, at the same time the duty waß tkt per lb. According to you tlie consumer ought to have paid at least lOd per lb, but he actually got them for ljd less than the duty, which I consider conclusive proof that your opinion is a fallacy. Put that, Mr Editor, in your pipe, and smoke. [Bubbish ! Are all hops grown in Nelson district consumed in Nelson '( Coal at the pit mouth is sometimes a third the price paid tor it after carriage, even of n few miles. Thus, at AVaUsend (N.S.W) it is (is to '.Is a ton retail at the pit mouth, 10s to 11s a ton at Newcastle, H miles away, and ISs at Sydney SO miles away. Tup principle which you challenge lias been l;)i<l down, not by us by fiscal authorities greater even than your prompter. — Ed., N,E.M.j You next state that my query as to " why did you forget to inform your readers that the population was 120,(KXJ more now than in 1H(K) '!" is intentionally misleading. I think I can prove with very little difficulty that you are guilty of that charge, not me. First, of all my statement that the population is 121MXAI more now than in IH'JO is perfectly correct. You witsi your usual eunningness gave the figures up to the beginning of 18W, but it is nearly the end of the year now. Secondly, you quote the increase of the various colonies, and then state. "Surely all those increases were not due to Seddonism in Now Zealand." This ib qnite laagbablp. buiely you do not think for a moment that I, Mr.Seddon, or any of hi* supporters, ever made luch a claim. Your next statement. ' But tin- increase of population in New Zeahuid in INMMMJ wasfrom4Bi,h(H to (i-'G.OW, or lH,l*t--23,709 more than in tho last decude," is a deliberate falsehood. Now we all know a decade is ten yearn. The 1 11,181 was the increase for the one ending IMKJ, and the increase of 117,410 is for a period of eight years ending ibfM. Thu increase last year was over H,CXJO, and it is only fair to assume that tho increase will be quite- as mm h this and next year, consequently at tin- end of I'JOO the- total increas'! of Urn decade will be about 1 «>^ls, or 50<J<J more than the last. You also (juoted the public expenditure of 1809-IS'JI and IK'JS-JW, which if you will work ifc out, you will find was jEu' 10s Gd per head for the former, and £U 10s Od for tho latter — proof that the expenditure was practically tho samo for each year. [By the end of I'M), if corruption and tyranny continue, and we keep on spending borrowed money, people will be leaving tho colony instead of coming to it. — Ed. N.E.M.] I never said there was no* increase of debt " because individuals instead of the State pay some of tho interest." I admit that the debt has been increased by .£8,000,000, but my charge against you ia that you tried to mislead your readers by not informing them that the interest on

was paid by private persons. I dispute your assertion that Civil Servants' billets would be jeopardised if names were published. Perhaps you would uot mind sending information to me privately who in the service has been intimidated, and who have had their names removed from the electoral roll. What for ? [ For your prompter to put a black mark against them for future use, as in the case of Mr Greenfield and Mr Sclanders ? Ask about, and you will soon learn what Nelson servants have removed their names from the rolls.— Ed. N.E.M.] Yours etc., OBSEItVEK. [You remind us of the Scots cottar wife's answer to her Majesty. The Queen inquiring into the composition of the brose was told that there was kail and other things '• in tilt." She asked what's "in tilt "? and the auld wife repeated the names of the ingredients. As to " falsehood," it is Mr Coghlan and tho " Year Book " and not we who tell it, while any one not a fool or a special pleader knows that the present decade is not quite finished. But it is easy to strike an average, for, if the tyranny and corruption of Seddonism be renewed for another year the population will certainly remain at a standstill. You have had plenty of range with the defective ammunition supplied to you by others, and you have received far more courtesy, space, and attention for your tedious fallacies than you deserve. As you are " shooting wild"" you may " oease firing " now, and save your prompter's blank cartridges! for the next election. — Ed. N.E.M.]