[TO THE EDITOR 07 THE "SPECTATOR "]
SIR,—Mr. Leslie Ashe might misconstrue my silence, other- wise I should not trouble you with a second letter on this subject. Part of my contention he concedes when he says that " doubtless the present Government is an inefficient bulwark against Socialism " (Spectator, September 24th), but I cannot congratulate him upon his criticism of the other part. I agree that Socialism would penalise "mental and moral workers" for the benefit of "manual workers," but when my critic goes on to suggest a parallel between " producers " and " consumers " under "Protection" (meaning Tariff Reform), he, unconsciously perhaps, sinks to the level of low caricature. In the first place, it is misleading to suggest any correspon- dence between " Protection " and Tariff Reform, and the beginning of wisdom in regard to the Fiscal question lies in the recognition of that fact. Secondly, so far from Tariff Reform involving an antithesis between " producers " and " consumers," instructed Tariff Reformers invariably argue that such an antithesis is false and absurd. It is the Free- trader who commits this economic sin. His argument is that Tariff Reform may benefit the producer, but that Free-trade is essential because it secures "cheapness to the consumer." The Tariff Reform argument is that, though some consumers are not producers, there are no consumers who are not directly or indirectly dependent on the efforts of producers. Apart from this irrelevant criticism, I cannot see that Mr. Leslie Ashe establishes any flaw in my argument.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
