The Press. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1899. THE PREMIER AT NELSON.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10270, 13 February 1899, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1899. THE PREMIER AT NELSON.

A rather amusing incident has happened about the latest public utterance of the Premier. He spoke at Nelson, and a short summary of his speech was forwarded by the Press Association Our contemporary, the "Evening Post," reading the summary and seeing absent from it the usual rhodomontade mat distinguishes the utterance of the Premier, made complimentary references to what looked like a statesmanlike speech. When the full report arrived at Wellington, our contemporary was undeceived, and discovering that it was the same old story that had been told at Nelson, it was not very complimentary in its remarks. We confess it is somewhat surprising that some people imagine that a politician can change his methods in a day. The old question should be remembered, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" The speech at Nelson is the same that was delivered at Greymouth, full of the misleading figures given at the West Coast, with some more added. It is plain that either the reporter did not know what the Premier said, or else the Premier read out his figures without understanding them. We have already dealt with the figures given at Greymouth, and we do not require to repeat what we have already said. There are, however, two or three more statistical statements made, and it is well to examine them. One is as follows : —" Private wealth has increased by £52,435,000, or £252 per " head of the population, and the value " of land by £27,453,633." So far as private wealth is concerned, the amount is a mere guess, and we will show how it is arrived at. The colony has no accurate statement of the private wealth of its citizens, but it has been usual to arrive at an estimate ctf the private wealth in this way: The value of the property left by deceased persons in one year is divided by the number of deaths in that year, and then it is assumed that those living have the same amount of property per head If there is an epidemic amongst children, and many infants die, we will, according to such statistics, become poorer. If, however, influenza is rife, and it attacks the old and well-to-do, we become more wealthy. And yet it is on this basis that we estimate the private wealth of the colony. In case our readers think we are not stating the facts accurately, but are dealing with how the people of Laputa dealt with statistics, we refer them to the New Zealand Year Book. We need not say that Mr Yon Dadelszen admits it is a mere guess, but then he is not Mr. Seddon, and we have the sorry spectacle of the Premier of the colony gravely tolling a Nelson audience Avhat the private wealth of the colony is, and how it has increased. His figures are, -however, even in this guess, not fair. The lowest wealth per head has been since 1890, namely, in 1895. It was in that year £219 per head, whilst in 1890 the rate given was £228 per head. We, however, say that all figures about the private wealth are mere guesses, and should not be put forward as facts. Then the Premier is reported to have said the increase per head was £252. The fact is, that is not the increase, but the total estimated amount per head; but to Mr Seddon such a blunder will appear a very small matter. He does not rate the intelligence or knowledge of his audiences very high. We now come to the other misstatement in the paragraph we have quoted. It is said that the increase of land values has been £27,453,633. This is just as accurate as the other misstatements we have exposed. The fact is, the total increase was £16,366,318, the increase in the North Island being £14,239,837, and in the South Island, £2,126,481. And this increase has been got not by a real rise in value, but by a dut'erent system of valuation. Mr Seddon says land was undervalued in 1891. If so there has not been this increase in value, but only in valuation. But how did he get his £27,453,633, and not quote accurately the Land Tax Commission returns ? Another statement made was that the value "of their manufactures had in- " creased by 42 per cent.'* Here, again, the Premier is talking bunkum. We have no means of accurately arriving at the products cf our manufactures, as we do not know what are used in the colony. If, as is true, our imports of manufactured articles have increased, then the assumption is that our manufactures are not keeping pace with our wants. We have only two tests that can be applied, the increase at census periods when accurate information is obtainable, and the value of our manufactures that are exported. If we examine the figures of both, then our joy, or boastfulness, will be turned into sorrow. We may take the census records first. "llie values at the three last census periods were : — 1886 £6,711,379 1891 £8,773,837 1896 £9,549,360 or to put it in another way, the increases were from 1888 to 1891 £2,062,458, and from 1891 to 1896 only £775,523. These

figures cannot be questioned. They are official. The other "test* is the value of manufactures exported for nine years. How do we stand? Can we show any progress or development in our manufacturing industries ? The following figures will show: — Value of exports of New Years. Zealand Manufactures. 1889 £569,880 1890 £547,947 1891 £420,357 1892 ... £367,677 1893 £345,636 1894 .., ... £224,958 1895 ... £188,702 , 1896 £198,081 1897 £197,601' * These figures are also official, and they are a lamentable record. How is the great decline in the export of manufactured articles to be explained ? Can our Labour laws have had anything to do with it? What now Avill be thought of the humbug the Premier talked of the increase of our manufactures ? We have not alludled to many more misleading statements and half truths. Again, he led his audience to assume that the value of our agricultural products had greatly increased. This is not true. As Aye have shown in a previous article, the value of such exports fell from £1,289,864 in 1890, to £495,175 in 1897. We have so often exposed the Premier's humbug and his misleading statements that the task gets tiresome. It is certainly not to the credit of New Zealand that its Premier should be so unreliable in his statements, but'apparently he thinks the mass do not know the facts, and we do not knoAV if in this respect he is wrong. He does not appeal to those who know, but to those who are ignorant of statistics, and who have not, perhaps, the opportunity of testing his figures.