I wrote about four years ago, I would point out that no fact or statement made in that report has been shaken by any talk or published matter up to date, so far as I can see. I have not watched the seasons closely in the Esperance district during the last four years , but I know enough to say they have not been good for wheat growing , not has any large area of Western Australia been blessed with good seasons during the same period. I am part owner of a farm in the Victoria district , which is admittedly the best wheat-growing country in the State. For three years the rains were erratic, either not enough or too much, and generally the whole State suffered in the same way. If there is anything wrong with the Esperance district , I am convinced it is not in the want of rain— that is , taking the seasons over a long period. The soils are described in detail in my report. Generally they consist of light loam overlying loamy clay. Too much has been heard of the salt question. I think it would be easy to prove there is more salt in the Northam, Victoria, or Southern districts than in the Esperance country.

1054. By Mr. PADBURY: Are you aware that the samples taken from low-lying ground and near swamps were included ?— I only know of two. I was not there all the time the sampling was going on. I know there were two that should not have gone in the average. They were taken , I suppose , for curiosity or education. I was not aware that Mr.Middleton was taking anything but a fair average. I went round for three weeks with him afterwards. I did not go to every hole he made; i was looking for bigger things than that. He may have got , unknown to me , samples in visible salt patches.

1055. We were told by one of the settlers that they were asked to take the samples from the low lying ground on which corn had been growing , and those appeared to us to be salty patches? — That was not right through the sampling. That was in July , when I was getting check samples.

1056. Were those analysis included with the others on which Mr.Mann reported? — No , they came afterwards . They came in the bunch from other district.

( The witness retired) _________________________

JOHN WAUGH PATERSON,further examined:

1057. By the CHAIRMAN : have you read the official report of the evidence given by Mr. Mann ?— yes.

1058. Do you agree with the statement that the 05 per cent standard for common salt is used in the other States of Australia ? — No. In Victoria there is no such standard ; in new South Wales, Mr. Guthrie , chemist to the Agricultural Department, stated that most farm crops will stand as much as from 1 to 2 percent of common salt in the soil , but if this amount is exceeded crops are likely to be affected. I have no information about the other States.

1059. When did you froward samples for analysis to the Government laboratory ? — On the 15th November last.

1060. Did you state where the samples had been taken from ? — No. It had no bearing upon the work of analysis , and was not asked for.

1061. Does Mr. Mann say that 05 per cent of common salt would render the soil useless? — No , although he may be understood in that sense. There has been a good deal of discussion about the 05 standard . He says it indicate only that salt might be in dangerous quantity, and admits that soul samples taken from growing crops and alongside growing crops would be a fair test. He seems to accept the fact which is revealed in the latest analysis : that certain soil conditions may permit crops where even 2 or 3 per cent of common salt is now found.

1062. Do you agree with the statement that there is more salt at the surface on bush lands than on cultivated lands? — No . My experience is that salt is kept down by bush growth , and indeed the tendency of salt is to come to the surface after the land has been cleared.

1063. What deductions do you make from Mr. Mann's pot experiments? — For practical purposes the results would permit the cropping of soils containing much more than 05 per cent of common salt. In the germination tests no record is given of the rate of germination when no salts were present. It is unfortunate also that no record is given of the degree of moisture maintained in the pots, as this factor would very materially affect the results.

1064. In Connection with standards for salt ,have you any remarks to make on the American experiments quoted by Mr. Mann ? — I do not agree that Mr. P. V. O'Brien has misread or misunderstood Hilgard's work. If he has , then I , in company with Dr. Russell , Director of the Experiment Station at Rothamsted, England , have made the same mistake. Mr. A. D. Hall , going chiefly on Hilgard's work, agrees with him that most farm crops will grow in soils containing 25 per cent of common salt. Regarding the more recent work quoted from America by Mr. Mann, the experiments of Mr. F. S. Harris and also those of Messrs . Headley , Curtis , and Schofield , are scarcely relevant. These experiments grew their wheat in drinking glasses, and reaped the wheat crops when 15 to 18 days old. Such young crops are less tolerant for salt than older crops and this would make the tolerance for salt too low. There are matters connected with the experiments of Harris about which I need not trouble this Commission. These factors,on the contrary, would make the results too high.

1065. What information did you ask for in forwarding the samples to the Government Analyst? — For the soils I asked an estimation of (1) total inorganic salts; (2) chlorine; (3) sulphuric acid; (4) carbonic acid as carbonates ; all of these from the water extracts of the soils. Mr. Mann has stated that sodium sulphate and sodium carbonate were asked for ( copy of letter produced ). This is erroneous , and surely a mistake must have crept in to the report of Mr. Manns's evidence.

1066. Are those the usual determinations required in an investigation of salt in soils? — Yes.

1067. How was the amount of chlorine estimated in Mr.Mann's report? — As common salt. Chlorine was found , and then stated as an equivalent of sodium chloride , or common salt. The sodium of common salt is never directly found by the analyst in such work. To state chlorine in terms of common salt is a conventional practice , but anyone knows that part of the chlorine might be combined with other bases than soda ; for example, with magnesia or lime.

1068. Did you ask for a determination of sulphate of soda? —No. Sulphuric anhydride, commonly known to the analyst as sulphuric acid , was asked for , but not sodium sulphate.

1069. Mr. Mann states that he takes no responsibility for the figures relating to sulphate of soda.