To the Editor of the " Evening Mail." Sir,— l Bhould be ashamed to aßk you to insert any further letter of mine, if my object merely were to bandy personalities with Mr Levestam, but that is not my object at all. I bear no personal ill will to Mr Levestam, and es long as he will refrain from interfering in matters which he does not understand, or at any rate from attempting to instruct others in such matters, I shall not have anything to BJty to him. But in the letter which he wrote to you last week he did make that audacious attempt, and by many who did not examine too curiously what he said he was supposed to have made out a plausib'e case. I myself was at first among the number, but when I came to test his figures and his " facts," I very quickly changed my opinion and felt bound at once to warn the public that the case waa fallacious and the advocate untrust worthy. Of course in two letters of about a column each I have cot attempted to go into the whole question of Protection v. Freetrade, I have considered merely one special attack. But can Mr Levestam pretend that I have not done the oause of Freetrade in Nelson a great service if I have proved that its chief opponent here is so untrustworthy that any statement of his upon the subject unless supported by other independent evidenoe is practically valueless, and may even reaßon ably suggest that the reverse is the truth ? That this assertion is not too strong the following summary will show : — 1. Mr Levestam's facts.— (a) Mr Levestam stated that machinery was admitted free into Viotoria. T)riß of course is untrue. (b~) Mr Levestam stated that even in "those industries for which N.S.W. seems better fitted by nature than Victoria," Victoria had the ad vantage. That of course is untrue. 2. Mr Levesta-it's Mathemitics. — (a) Mr Levestara stated that the difference between £514,000 and £355,000 exceeded the difference between. £784,000 and £619,000 by over £90,000; whereas it is really less by £6,0001 (&) In his first letter Mr Levestam made, as he has admitted, a similar use of the paradox that the part exceeds the whole. 3. Mr Levestairi's Economies. 