MR. GAUGHLEY'S MUCH-MUDDLED STATISTICS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2168, 5 June 1914, Page 9

MR. GAUGHLEY'S MUCH-MUDDLED STATISTICS.

Sir, —When I intervened—not between- tho parties for and against Biblc-in-Schools, but in order to belt) Mr. Caughloy to understand a subject in which he was making a lamentable exhibition of ignorance, I did so iu all Rood faith to help him to understand a science, tho rudiments of which ho has' not learned. Ho says I was sarcastic about his honesty—not so, I did take that on it faco value; I left him , tho leg of honesty to stand on, assiim- ' inn from his former professions of that virtuo that ho would not intentionally misrepresent facts, but was merely ignorant of the exact science of statistics. He admits that before ho quoted tlio figures ho had readv in the Commonwealth Year Book, Pago 910, tho paragraphs without which no statistician would attempt to quote tho figures relating to drunkenness; paragraphs which showed definitely that "convictions, for drunkenness taken by themselves are not an altogether satisfactory test of the relative sobriety of the inhabitants of each State." And yet Mr. Cautthley deliberately would lead his readers—the public to which he is appealing—to suppose that the figures represent tho last word to bo > said as to the alleged greater drunkenness of New South Wales than Victoria. > ' Could anything worse than this on the part of one who so persistently pushes himself into tho public cyo as a self-appointed leader? Ho says'that the damaging paragraphs which I.quoted "do not refer to general lower' Court convictions, Supremo Court convictions, divorce, illegitimacv, nor to the number of poonlo in gaol." But I never Baid they did! Mr. Caughlov cannot have read my letter as carefully as ho read tho paragraphs which ho' suppressed from tho public, because my letter confined itself exclusively to the one subject of drunkenness. When ho answers my question as to why ho gave ito tho public figures without .tho paragraphs which ho-.suppressed;--but',- wfy'cli tho Government Statistician 'attached to ■ . thom, it will bo timo enough for mo to deal with his.other..figures,. . Mr. Caughley was guilty of, jf possible, an-even greater suppression-. of facts about Tasmania, and now that I have publicly drawn, attention to that, he avoids answering. my straight question as. to why, when ho quoted (nonBible in Schools) Victoria as producing . less drunkennpjsUan (Bible in Schools) ?»ew South MnM, heeoncenlcdfrom the |"'blic the fact that in (Biblo in Schools) Jttsmnma the convictions for drunkenness were stated in the;very same column at 35.9 per .10,000 of tho .population, as compared with Victoria's <xj.b (tho latter being in . any case 'admittedly-open to doubt"). As no entirely ignores my question, one can come to no other conclusion than that it is because Victoria has not cot what, Mr. Cainrhlev- opposes-tho Bible-m-Schools—whilo Tasmania has the verv system against : which Mr. Caur-hloy manipulated statistics. Ho cannot escape from the dilemma in which ho has Placed himself ■Ho adduced tho (no" , B'ble-m-Scho ol) Victorian drunkenness statistics-(and I confined mvself to the drunkenness statistics) to support him and deliberately withheld fromTle it lie -n. knowledge of tb P fnM- +l,„ Vii for drunkenness,™ at such a low rate Mr. Caughloy's attempt to appeal • to Funics in support of his views P -I am! rw i t. ,' NUMERO. .