Hawke's Bay Herald, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1893.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 9519, 2 November 1893, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1893.

THE PREMIER.AND HIS FIGURES. "When I deal with figures in behoves me to ba careful," said the Premier at Napier, and ho thereupon plunged into a mass of astounding misstatements about tho large estates held in the colony. For about a month the journalistic apologists of Ministers were at their wits' end to explain away the Premier's inaccuracies. First it wqb stated that ha had merely said " persons" in place of "companies." When it was shown that that could not be the case, it was explained that be had simply reversed figures relating to acreage and value. When that was exposed, Mr Seddon's critics wero abused for correct' ing him on such a trifling enor as the conversion of hundreds of thousauds into millions. In the end the attempt to make black appear white was given up in despair. Oae would have thought that that little experience would have made tho Premier really carefal the next time he tackled the same set of figures. Bat at Feilding, unless be is the most grievously misreported ot all men, Mr Seddon got more hopelessly astray than evei. He is thus reported in the Lyttdton Times, the Government organ s— "Thirty persons owned over 00,000 acres each, valued at £3,712,915. Thirty-seven persons owned between 100,000 and 200 000 acres, valued at £4,952,568. Eleven persons owned 200,009 acres, valued at £4,835,562 Forty eigat persons owned 9,000,000 acres, valued at £122,000,000. . . , . He instanced the case of a

person or company owning 200.000 acres of the unimproved value of £2,655,678, and with Improvements £5,538,049, that wonld pay under the graduated tax £18,708." The Christchurch Press has taken the trouble to corupaie these figures with the published official land tax returns, and this is the result:— "We are told that 30 persons own »ver 50,000 acres each throughout the whole colony, valued at £5,712,915, whereas there are only 17 persons, omitting the Cheviot estate as now public property, who own 50 000 acres and over, and their properties are valued at £1,943,535, or if the unimproved value only is considered £1,413,607. Thus the misrepresentations are 13 persons and £3,769,380 of value, or if the unimproved value only is considered, the misrepresentation is £4,299,308. Again it is said 37 persons own between 100,000 and 200,000 ncres, valued at £4,952,508, whereas only one person owns between ICO.OOO and 150,000 acres, valued at £22,677, and that one person is included in the 17 before enumerated. This property is the largest individually owned. The misrepresentations are 36 persons and £4,929,891 of value. We are furthir informed that 13 persons own 200,000 acres, valued at £4,835,562. Persons, land, and value have no existence. Forty-eight persons it is again said hold 9,000,000 acres, valued at £122,000,000. Person?, land, and value have no existence. If they did exist, these 48 persona would own all the settled land of New Zealand with the exception of £225,029 in value, as £122,225,020 represent the actual value, as assessed, of the land and improvements of the whole colony. The Premier instances a case, entirely imaginary, of a person or company owning 200,000 acres, of the unimproved value of £2,655,678, and with improvements £5,538.045), that would pay nnder the graduted tax £18,708. This alleged etstate has no existence, and it it did exist it wonld pay £33,195 14s 6d ia graduated and ordinary land tax combined. The largest individual property of high value contains 75,666 acres, and that estate is assessed, with improvements, at £369,041. The next property in value ia more thin £100,000 behind it. The property highest in acreage and value united belonging to a public company contains 233,480 ceres, of an improved value of £1,103,271. Supposing it was this property the Premier intended to refer to, the misrepresentation in value is no less than £4,434,778. Hut this is no individual property. Its owners may probably be counted by the hundreds. It is owned on the co-operative principle— a syst-ni supposed to be mnch in favor with the present Government." When Mr Seddon was a private member no one attached any importance to bis statements. But when he speaks as Premier a great responsibility rests on him, and those who know, no better believe what he says. No doubt bis Feilding audience applauded that part of his speech to the echo, yet a wilder set of inaccuracies emild not well havo been condensed into the same space.