To the Editor of the " Evening Mail."

Sin,— Owing to circumstances beyond rcy control I hiiV-3 beon unable to an-awer \lr

Levestam'a last letter soout-r, but witb ycur permission I will now do bo very briefly. Tha f arts of my last letter whicb most con cern Mr Levestam'a reputation as an ecoio rn'Bl were tho-*e which tabulated hiseconomi oal and matbemuiioal blunders. Ou the first head I am accused of misquoting him ;

though I made no pretenoe of quotiug him. What I did was thi? :— ln my second let. or I to^k a sir'gle sentence of Mr Leves'au-'s, and point* d out ihe inupl-oatiouß c.utiinfd ir it and the conclusions wiih respect to Mr L.vestam's views to he legiiimatdy deduced from i*. Those cot-elusions he made no att-mpt tocholierge in hie reply, but now w.ien I ri'«ata<e them what is hia answer? He oh-illongea me to quo*6 them from either of bia letters. It would have teen as reason able for him to have challenged m« to quoti* from either of hiß firßu two latters the rss-r. tion that the part was greater than the whole, because 1 sbuwed conolueively that that paradox was involved more than ence in hi. calculation*-*. But es he aska for a quotation I will again quot. fcr him che sentence in nia Beoond letter on which my argument was based : — *' Wool-production cannot in any may be influenced by fiscal policy, besides this a large portion of the New /South Wales neol export is due to Victorian capital and enterprise, as almost the whole of the large Kivtrina district is stocktd and work-d by Victorian capital." Tcere ore Mr Levest-m's own worie, and do they not «* tacitly" imjly thone two promises— (l). Ti-atan unprotected ortiole cauuot be aff.otud by tha protection of others. (2). That it was to the oredi, of J Via orian prosptti.y thab her own oapital had to 3eik inveßttnunt in the rivt.l coloDy ? Surely it was veiy uogenoroußaudunwort.y cf Mr Lt-vesUm to refuse to face the^e j quei.ticjp, and lo content hiu_s.if instead witii the evasive quibbl'that'lie implications j wLi.b I represented as uuderljing his argu ment were not explicitly stated iv it. 