The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-10-21

the experimental legislation of New Zea-
land relating to labor questions has been
wise, or that all of it is working in the
interests of the workers, but do assert
with a pretty extensive knowledge of labor
conditions thruout the United States of
America and Great Britain, that the con-
dition of the workers in New Zealand is
immensely superior to what 1t is in either
of the countries I have named. I am of
the opinion that the superior condition of
the workers in New Zealand comes more
largely from the land tax, and from the
taxation Of land values for local govern
ment purposes, than from labor legislation,
but notice that Mr.. Parry includes the
land tax in his condemnation. It is very
easy for a gentleman to make staten nts
in America about the conditions in New
Zealand and Australia because he feels
safe from contradiction, at any rate, for
a very long time after his statements are
made. I need only draw your attention
to. one statement made by Mr.. Parry re-
gard1ng New Zealand and give you the
actual figures from the official records of
the colony, and leave your readers to
judge how far he Is an accurate and re-
liable commentator on the questions he
presumes to be an authority on. He states
that immigration into New Zealand had
practically ceased. Now, what are the
facts? The population Of New Zealand
in 1900 was 76S,27S; in 1901, rs, Os6 people
year, 30,293; a total of $3.50 arrivals in
the: two years. That gives the innigra-
ton for the two years at the rate Of To
per cent on the population. Of 1900. From
the Statesman's Year book, T find that the
population Of the United States in 1900
was 76,303,3s7, and the immigrants for
1901 number 4S7, 918; for 1902, 64S, TAB. A
total for the two years Of 1,136,661, or an
addition for the two years by immigration
of 1.4S per cent on the population Of 1900.
In other words the percentage of arriv-
ais In New Zealand was nearly six times
as great for the two years as into the
United States. It may be, however, that
some difference occurs in the method Of ar
| irving at those who are immigrants In the
United Etates and If we take the excess
of arrivals over departures from New Zea-
land, we would get probably a more &C.
curate comparison. Taking that basis for
| the year 1901, the excess of arrivals over
departures amounted to 6,522; in 1902,
| 1892. A total for the two years of IA, 514; ;
which, on our population in 1900, amount
ed. to 10 per cent; still nearly 1a per cent
larger than the immigrants into the
United States compared with the popula-
tion Of the two countries. ought also to
point out that if we were within five days
! steam Of the teeming populations Of Eu-
rope, instead Of five weeks, the probabili-
ties are that no more immigration would
take place into the United States until
New Zealand was full to overflowing
However, it Is not my purpose to discuss
that question; I merely want to point out
this glazing fnaccuracy in Mr.. Parry's
statement which, I think, will go far to
discount his whole talk in opposition to
the progressive character of the legislation
Of New Zealand and Australia.
George Fowlds,
Member Of the House of Representatives
Wellington, N. T.. Sept. 2. 1903.