TEA V. FRUIT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9927, 17 September 1895, Page 3

TEA V. FRUIT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, Evidently the time is limited for aw expression of opinion on the amended tariff. Still it is desirable that there should be a public sentiment voiced, which I think will be found against the proposed duty on fresh fruit. It is difficult to understand why it was deemed necessary to increase the revevue by £10,000 a few weeks back, and now decrease' it by £7000. Unless the difference is to be made good by increased taxation in some other form the permanent charges prevent any substantial reduction being made. No doubt this is one reason why the Government cannot remit the £13,000 duty on the Dilworth bequest. Other important reasons can be urged. If this is the position, then ali that we can expect is such a re-arrangement of duties as shall foster agriculture, and suitable industries, and press as lightly as possible on the necessaries -of life that we cannot produce. In view of these facts, I think the proposed duties on fresh fruits, especially island produce, a great mistake. These fruits come in when our local fruits are scarce, and the Island trade requires fostering rather than hindering, while the use of fruit should be encouraged. The cost of tea has declined so much in the last few years that although the duty is too high still the public are supplied with good tea at reasonable prices. Under the circumstances. I think it would be a public benefit to leave the tea duties untouched, allow the fruit to come in free, reduce the duty on rice, a most important article of food, and take off 2d per gallon on kerosene. I have not time to work out she results, but have little doubt they will be less than the half duty on tea that it is proposed to remit.—l am, etc., R French. '