310 TlMEHRI. 
It may be true that in some very isolated cases the 
Reciprocity Treaty may bear injuriously on individuals, 
but I should like to hear in what particular, and to what 
extent, this would affe6t the colony generally. It may 
also be contended that the reductions in our Tariff do 
not affe6l the consumer. I admit the possibility, or even 
probability, that the principles of political economy as 
taught by the great masters of that science, cannot 
always be applied to the peculiar circumstances of this 
colony. I remember when certain duties were le- 
imposed in the year 1888 — after a few years of free ad- 
mission — on certain staple articles of provisions, what 
arguments were used against the measure, — but what 
is sauce for the gander, must be sauce for the goose. 
To make up the revenue sacrificed by the Reciprocity 
Treaty Obligations, some new incidents of Taxation had 
to be found, some of which have been objected to. Of 
course every new tax meets with serious objection from 
some quarter and happy is the Government that need 
not impose them. The planters I think a6led wisely in 
cheerfully submitting to the small imposition of 50 cents 
per acre on their cultivation, which yields a revenue of 
about $40,000. Let us consider how this bears on the 
price of their produce. The acreage in cane cultivation 
remains about 80,000 acres for the whole colony, which 
at the average of 1*50 tons per acre yields about 120,000 
tons of sugar. Their direct contribution towards the 
loss of revenue under the Treaty therefore amounts to 
33i cents per ton or about i£ cents on every 100 pounds 
of sugar, which is certainly a small contribution towards 
a gain of $6 per ton. The additional tonnage dues were 
not considered with favour by some, especially the ship 
