OUR GOLD-FIELDS, OUR GOLD-FIELDS, HURRAH FOR OUR GOLD FIELDS.

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 114, 23 November 1858, Page 3

OUR GOLD-FIELDS, OUR GOLD-FIELDS, HURRAH FOR OUR GOLD FIELDS.

To the Editor of the Colonist. Sir, Your contemporary has favored us with the results of the labors of a gentleman, who, as he tells us, lias devoted much time and attention to the subject of the productiveness of our gold-fields, as well as the amount of remuneration or earnings of the speculators at the diggings. From his estimate, founded upon the quantity of the precious metal produced divided by the number of hands at work, it gives the satisfactory result of an average earning of three pounds twelve shillings per man per week; and he concludes this gratifyingintelligence by observing, " we have not heard of a more favorable average on any other diggings iv the world." If ever the truth of the adage, " that all is not gold that glitters" was fully confirmed, I think the above specious account of our goldfields does so. Are we to jump to the conclusion as many, aye hundreds, in their ignorance of the true meaning and interpretation of the word " average," will -be too apt to do, that three hundred and fifty men had been earning three pounds twelve shillings each per week. Methinks I hear your contemporary exclaim with a sneer, no ! and none but a. fool would ask such a stupid question. If Buch should be his answer, then, I ask him to explain what he does mean by his term ••' average earnings." I can understand the case of, say ten men taking a contract from our Board of Works, which when completed shall give an average earnings to each person ; but where, as in the.case of our gold-fields, all is a lottery, in which each man speculates for himself, or, if youplease, two or more purchase a ticket between them, and where one party draws a blank, and another a prize, to talk of an average of earnings divided among the whole body of speculators, is not only a gross perversion of terms, but calculated to delude persons ignorant of the fallacy of such a deduction. What would be said of a person who, having presented, we will say your humble servant, a gouty, elderly gentleman of three score and ten, with a blooming bride of twenty, should say, there now, they are what I call a. sensible couple; both in tiie prime of life, both the same age, just 45! Would not the person, -when he discovered the hoax put upon him, set the narrator down for a humbug, and very justly bo ? Take another view of the case1: One can understand the meaning of the term average when applied to such articles as corn, sugar, &c.; still, if any pewon on looking over the prices current, and seeing that the price of sugars ranged from nvepeuce to tenpence, and striking the average, was to conclude that all sugars were sevenpence halfpenny per pound, and when offering his money was told it was ninepence, would he not say, no, your list of prices state the average price is sevenpence halfpenny. What would be tlie reply of Treacle and Co. This : Oh ! sir, I see you are not a man of business, or you would know that by the term average, the trade mean that there are samples at fivepence and samples at tenpence, not that they .are all lumped together at the price of savenpence halfpenny. So' I say to the working people of Nelson, when they read that every digger gets upon an average .£3 123. per week, go to some person who can and will explain to you the meaning of the term " average' 1 before you speculate in the average lottery of our gold fields. One more case, and which may be called " argumenlum ad hominem." A dies, leaving one thousand pounds to be divided in certain proportions; the youngest to have £37 ids!,'nevertheless averaging i-200 each. The youngster proposes to B to sell him his share of the £1000, which he represents as averaging £200,; and B not criticising to a nicety the meaning of the term average, gives an equivalent for £200 Would not the purchaser, even supposing him (o be $ho calculating gentleman alluded to, set the young legatee down for a cheat ? And we are morally certain he would not give 350 diggers credit at his store for £3 123. 6d. per week each upon the mere statement that the weekly productions would average that amount. I think I have sufficiently exposed the fallacy of the indiscriminate use of the terns averages, and 'that although the average of 5 and 1 would be they may be set down ia such a manner as not to make twice three.

Since writing the above, I have read with great satisfaction that-'fliers is one sensible individual besides myself who thinks there lias feeen ever too much leaning upon Government for support, which it is neither within its province ■or legitimate duty to render, and too little exertion made by the community to avail themselves of such opportunities as may offtsr of permanently advancing the colonial interests. The duty of a Government is, simply to protect Fife and property, and to remove such obstacles as may tend to check private enterprise. It is for the people themselves, by their united energies, to develope the resources of the country. In reference to the former part of this letter, recollect I neither dispute the amount of produce or the number of diggera as set clown. I •only demur to the logical deductions of the writer, and remain, Yours, &c, . ; . SENEX ALBUS.

■To the Editor of the Colonist. :Sm, —The subscription list for the public clock I see is headed '" The Town Clock," and as about half the amount required is public money, and the remainder to be by voluntary subscription, myself and some oiliers think it ought—previously to its being fixed in the very desirable position intended, viz., in front of the 'Church tower—to be understood whether the said clock is the property of the church or the town. At present it is perhaps a matter of very little importance, yet soma guarantee ought to be had that the clock does not become useless by want of the necessary attention and repair-. Yours, &c, TICK-TICK. 22nd November.