CORRESPONDENCE.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 13 September 1911, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE MILLER AND. THE MAN

XO THE EDITOB.

Sir, —There appeared in your paper of 30tli August, an article inspired by ■ Mr Peter Virtue, the manager of the ' Northern Boiler Milling Company, .;', entitled " Please Cotipare the two Tar^ iffs and Reflect. ?' ,;

This is an article in favour of protection and you say, "We leave the v answer to our readers.' 1

As I think it ought to be answered and as I am afraid nobody Trill take the trouble to do so in your columns if I don't, I beg to be allowed to do as a duty I owe to the Public, although Ido not profess to be an expert on the subject. '

Mr. Virtue's chief argument, it appears to me, is not clearly stated but only infered. He compares the import, duties on flour and other things charged in Australia with those charged in New Zealand, exhibited them in parallel columns and shows that the New Zealand duties are, on an average, about 150 per cent, lower than the Australia,

Well? What of that? Mr Virtue does not say. He certainly means to infer something, but leaves us to make our own inferences. What he prob. ably wants us to infer maybe stated in this way ir—-

Because Australia chopaes to make her people pay more for their food by taxing their provisions to a larger extent than we do, therefore it would be very improper for New Zealand to untax her food as Mr Hogg, M.H.R. has been attempting to do in our Parliament for several years past. On a superficial view this looks plausible, but Mr Virtue quite ignores the fact that the principal of taxing the people's food is wrong both in Australia and New Zealnd. • He nlso, I suppose, wants us to in- ' . fer, that because Australia has injured " * us by excluding our produce, we should - - retaliate by excluding their produce, *l but this would do neither country an* ' • good, it would be simply injuring «,£ ' selves to spite Australia, , '». tW-JHr? th - doubt but * that Mr Virtue misrepresents Mr Hot?* ** when he says Mr Hoggs aim in intro* ducmg his Free Food Bill was to kiH " v the milling and grain growing h^i -: rtries. He may have made a mi ß ffls*'" ' m not trying to untax wheat as well * •' i mgthutMrHogghadnointentbHf l injuring the gram^growing and mill- '' mg industries. Mr Ho|g miatbe well aware that,, these industries are ,'' not intant industries, that they do no* . ' require fostering, and that they are '■ quite strong enough to stand alone ■* :'f*f^T&rt^ arguments for ' nee-taade, but I have not room for ■< more than one now. Here it is /-• New Zealand's chief markete^e the ' -* * American, British, and--BuroJEma ' 1 ke-s, we have to compete in tiffllmar- l^" ket« with other countriessuclasDen. % V mark and Argentina, to do so " c « ; quire to be able to raise our product ' •> as cheaply as possible; now a free tradJ * - system has a veiy decided advanW m this respect over DMt«« nn T provide" food fo?thouglVI romjin, etc., HiSSHiW B. HcBSOK.