Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

THE CENSUS PAPERS.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir— Being desirous of escaping the £5 penalty for an
incorrect return, I have carefully perused the formidable
document, which has carried terror into so many homes.
So far as I can see, the Government, if so disposed, will
have little difficulty in making out the most of the
returns to be incorrect in some particulars. For instance,
it is stated under the general instructions that ' The
occupation which each person is following, and deriving
income from, at the time of the census should, in all
cases be stated.' Here the Government assume that
following an occupation, and deriving an income from
it, are synonymous terms. I sincerely wish they were.
I know more than one individual, who has been losing
money by his occupation for some time past, and yet
he might be charged with giving a false return,
seeing that he was not deriving an income from his
proper occupation, at the time the census was taken.
Or, is this an artful trap set for the ruined squatters,
and is future action to be taken, showing that their
reported losses must be fabulous, seeing that they have
actually certified that they were in receipt of an income
from squatting? Another much maligned class of our
fellow colonists will also have some difficulty in filling
up this column correctly. I refer to the gentlemen in
crape masks, whose numbers have now increased to five,
and as their receipts for the past week have been
limited to Is. in cash, a pipe, and a ring, they can
scarcely be said to be deriving an income from their
profession.
Again, I find that ' ' the terms fanner and gardener are
to be applied to all persons actually in occupation of land
and tilling.' Although ' tilling' is here used as a noun,
I presume tilling the soil is meant. Now, I am actually
in possession of a small plot of land, and I do till the
same,, but I cannot conscientiously call myself a farmer
and gardener, consequently I disobey the general in
structions, and render myself liable to a £5 penalty.
It is also stated that merchants, auctioneers, store
keepers, &c, are to name the staple in which they
deaL To fulfil this part of the instructions, would
require considerably more than the allotted space ; and
as to the clerks, who are placed in the same category,
it is usually supposed in mercantile circles«that they
are not permitted to deal in staples, and I fancy
most employers would dismiss any of their clerks they
found so engaged.
It is refreshing to find that District Councillors are
supposed to be 'important public officers,' and no
doubt this testimony will be gratifying to many of
them, but there is a vagueness in the word 'other,'
which must cause much painful anxiety in the minds
of diffident public officers as to whether they are in
cluded in the term ' important.'
After the very elaborate instructions as to the occu
pation of the adult male sex, I think the Government
have shown some want of respect to the ladies in pro
posing to include nearly all of them with the children,
as engaged in 'domestic duties.' I should like to be
informed what description of 'domestic duties' an
infant in arms is supposed to perform. And supposing
the case of an unfortunate fellow, whose wife totally
neglects her work, neither mending his clothes, cooking
his food, nor cleaning his house, how can he certify that
she is engaged in ' domestic duties?'
It is passing strange that in the columns of examples
the only member of a University should be a Baptist,
and that an individual bearing the very Christian and
Saxon name of Thomas Young, should turn out to be
a Jew. The same individual, I observe, though des
cribing himself as a merchant, in open defiance of the
instructions, stoutly refuses to name the staple in which
he deals.
Finally, I think that our Tasmanian fellow-colonists
should object to denote their birth-place, by its absolete
title of Van Diemen's Land, seeing that its modern
political and geographical designation is Tasmania.
By the way, does any one know what becomes of the
old census papers ? I myself saw a large batch of the
census papers of 1851, at a place so far distant from
the metropolis as Encounter Bay, where they were in
use as waste paper. As these documents are confidential
communications, I trust the Government will not
permit them to get into circulation a second time, but
will see that they are destroyed after their purpose is
accomplished.
I am, Sir, &c,
W. S.
March 24, 1866.
$