The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1889.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4547, 24 May 1889, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1889.

A few days ago it waa announced that tbo Registrar-General bad caused inquiries to be made as to the correctness or otherwise of this .year's agricultural statistics which had been obtained m due course through his department. It was stated that ho had arrived at the conclusion that, though m a few instances there bad been errorß, the returns were on the whole substantially correct. We do not believe that the public will be satisfied with that assurance. The returns showed, amongst other things, that the total wheat crop of 1889 was lesß than that of 1888, and very much less than tho wheat crops of 1883 or 1881. Of course, iv tho absence of detailed information, it would be useleas to assert definitely that those particulars are eiToneoiiß,

but there is a very widely spread impression that they are so. According to the returns the average yield of wheat per acre m 1889 was smaller than the average of any year during the last seven years. The official average yield of tbe oat crop was also low, and during the same period of seven years there had only once been a lower average. The average of barley was stated to have been somewhat higher than tbe averages of the last seven years. We have no hesitation m saying that we were from the first amongst the doubters of tbe department's accuracy, and tbat the subsequent announcement by tbe Hegis-trar-General left us doubters still. It is not impertinent to ask what steps he took to test the work of his subordinates. In all probability he merely applied to the collectors of agricultural statistics m the several districts ; brought under their notice the statements which had been made as to the inaccuracy of the returns ; and asked for further investigation. We do not know what else be could have done, but that step having been taken, the enquiry ia only Bhifted a stage further on. The next question is — What did the collectors of agricultural statistics da m response to the Registvar-General'e application ? In reply it may be confidently stated that tbey did not go over the ground again, and ascertain from the farmers what the '.various yields had actually been, either as shown by tbe threshing machine returns ot estimated m stook or m stack. But without such a second collecting of returns trustworthy information could not have been furnished to the department. It seems that m some instances inquiry actually was made of individual farmers, and some considerable mistakes were discovered. Notably, one instance m South Canterbury was bronght tc light m which the machine results showed 20,000 more bushels each oi wheat and oats, and 27,800 of barley But we repeat tbat there was nc general collection of returns siibaeqnent to the many expressions of doubt and denial, and subsequent alao to the gathering m of the harvest. What then becomes of tbe Registrar-General's assurance of substantial correctness, m tbe face of the almost universal contrary opinion of those best qualified tc judge ? Tbey believe that wbatevet may have been the acreage laid down m wheat and oats, tbe harvest was a most abnndant one, and the average yield higher than for som< years past. No further returns wil now be taken, and therefore the ua certainty as to the amount and aver' age of tbe harvest of 1889 will not b( removed. We do not remember anj former occasion on which there was such a general belief m tbe inaccuracy of the yearly agricultural statistics, bu! now tbat attention has been drawn tc the subject it may be worth while considering whether the information is collected at tbe most suitable time oi year. The statute providing for tbe collection of tbe statistics is " Tbe Census Act, 1877," and the month oi February is fixed aa the date when the account is to be taken. Tbe informa tion then supplied is to a large extent guesswork, and tbe queslior, arises whether it would not be better to amend tbo law so tbal the account might be taken when the harvest has become an accomplished fact. There does not appear to be any special reason why the month of Febvuary should have been fixed on, and if accuracy m the information is desirable, it surely would be better to question the farmer abont bis grain crops after tbey have been threshed than when they are ripening or being cut. In tbe former case be knows what be is talking about, for he has tbe weights; m tbe latter he can merely state his expectations, which may prove to be illfounded.

It baa been suggested tbat tbe appointment of Sir Francis Dillon Bell, the Agent-General of New Zealand, to be trustee for tbe Midland Railway Company may lead to unpleasant and perhaps costly complications. We are not quite sure as to the scope of bis duties and responsibilities, but it is Baid tbat be undertakes to see the debenture moneys expended for tbe purposes for for which they were lent, that he is to hold the land to which the company are entitled, and may have to regulate tbe Bale of the land from time to time to repay the borrowed money, Tbo New Zealand Herald, m on article on the subject, aaks : — " If the Government insist upon tbe money borrowed from debentnre-holderß, and now m the bands of its own Agent-General, being spent m any direction m opposition to tbo wishes of tbo company, what will be tbe position of tbo Government and its Agent-General if |that monoy Bhould prove to bo unprotitably Bpcnt and tbo company unablu to meet its liabilities to tbe debenture-holders ? Wbat will then be Sir Dillon Bell's position especially ? The question is asked specially m rela. tion to tbe Belgrovo end of the line. As yet tbe company bavo shown no disposition to commence work there, and recently when a deputation from Nelson waited upon tbe Premier and urged tbat tbe company sbould be compelled to go on with tbat portion of tbe undertaking, bo promised that the Government would " not lose sight of tbe matter." But tbe Premier did not say tbat he would insist on the company beginning work at the Belgrovo end, and we very much question wbetber the Government have the power to interfere. We can find nothing either m tbe Act or m tho contract to ennblo them to do so. The two railways (that is, from Springfield to Brunnerton, and from Brunnerton to Belgrove) have to be constructed m ten years, and tbe contract soys tbat they " are intended to be constructed simultaneously; " but, apart from tboae stipulations, the company's bands are not tied, and tbey can and no doubt will regulate the construction to suit the pockets of tbeit shareholders. We sbould therefore say that it is quito out of tbo question for tbo Government to insist on a start being made at Belgrove. Nor can we see how m any other matters the Government can insist upon the money borrowed from tho debenture-holdere being spent m a direction m opposition to tho wishes of tho company. At tbe sumo fcimo we think tbat Sir Fruncie Dillon Bell's connection ■with, tbe company and the debenture-holders is to bf regretted, and we are snrprißcd that the Government allowed him to accept the position. That thoy euggeatod bis sp-

pointnient we cannot believe. Probably the matter will be ventilated shortly i after Parliament meets, and otber 1 materinl facts may then come to light and serve to modify our present judgment.