A Canadian correspondent sends the following : "Can anything be less in accord with the spirit of the age, which is supposed to favor the reduction of taxes as much as possible on articles affecting the poorer classes, while collecting duties on more expensive articles of luxury? On examining the lumber tariff I find that exactly the contrary rule obtains, for the same duty is imposed upon spruce and the inferior qualities of pine, costing at the mills from six to eight dollars, as upon the clear and finer qualities, costing five times as much, while mahogany, rosewood and satinwood, costing hundreds of dollars per thousand, are admitted duty free. This is the country for the poor man; for the lumber to provide shelter for his family he must pay from twenty-five to thirty per cent. duty, while the rich man can finish off his mansion or palace in mahogany or rosewood duty free!"

As far as the mere politics involved in " duties on lumber" are concerned, we must leave that to other papers. We will only say {hat in this part of the world the poorest people buy articles made of mahogany and rosewood - as much, perhaps, in proportion to their incomes as rich people do, and the rich man buys as largely of pine and spruce, in proportion, as the poor man does. We fancy the duty has no reference to the wants of rich or poor, but has reference to the encouragement of the home production of timber. The reason why mahogany and rosewood are duty free, is probably that no amount of "protection" would lead to their culture in the United States.

Perhaps a duty on foreign lumber leads to a more rapid consumption of native trees than is immediately desirable, but if it lead to planting of new forests, it will do no harm in the end.