character. When we started we anticipated that all the wheat in hand would be shipped by the end of September. That influenced us in our agreements and the agreements made with the agents as to their responsibility. It also influenced the agents in the care they took of their stacks, because it was anticipated all would be away by September. In previous years the agents were never accustomed to carry wheat for any lengthy period; all the wheat was away by July or August. Consequently, the methods adopted in the past were adopted in connection with the Pool, and those methods were not satisfactory where the storage was prolonged. In view of that, we started to improve the methods and lay down methods which would cause them to do better. That caused extra work. At the beginning of 1917 we were advised by the Australian Wheat board that as the result of communication with authorities in Great Britain who knew the freight question better than anyone else, arrangements were made for ships to come out and take the wheat away by August that year, the whole of it. That cause me to write a minute that the handling arrangements at Fremantle would not permit that to be done. That minute can be obtained. You made reference to some report which you wanted and if you can indicate what papers you require, and what information you want, I might let you know from memory where they can be obtained.

923. By the CHAIRMAN: Were all the reports to the meetings verbally made?—There was a general manager appointed form the 17th July; I do not know what happened just then. Afterwards we had reports from the general manager, and even if they were verbal reports they were recorded. At the beginning of our operations we arranged that all records be kept. Each member of the committee received a copy of the minutes, so that he could check them while his memory was fresh. In addition there were financial statements drawn up to keep members familiar with every single detail of the Scheme as it went on. The original statements were most complete; we knew what money was being spent and where it was going.

924. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You were really an executive board, and the only thing Mr. Johnson did was to assist you so far as the finances were concerned?—If you include Mr. Johnson in the board, we were an executive board. Whatever was decided on at the meetings was done.

925. The only thing you had to refer was that of finance?—Even then he discussed it with us.

926. By the CHAIRMAN: It depended, then, principally on the Australian Wheat Board?—The whole question of finance was a fight from the beginning, and Mr. Johnson put up a big fight.

927. With regard to the Westralian Farmers acquiring agency, I notice that on the 8th March you were in the chair and this minute is recorded— With regard to the three points still in dispute between the Westralian Farmers and the Minister, in connection with the acquiring agreement, this board emphatically approves of the attitude of the Minister that there should be individual bag sampling at the depôts, realising that if a running bulk sample were accepted the Scheme would be paying the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., for unrequited services and would not safeguard the Scheme against incorrect dockage.

What scheme is adopted in regard to sampling?—It just depends upon what firm an agent is working for.

928. I am dealing with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—The system they should adopt is to sample every bag. There is a tendency on the part of the agents not to be hard on the farmers with whom they have to come into contact, and consequently, if there is no strict supervision they may pass as f.a.q. what otherwise should be docked.

929. So they were not sampling every bag?—I cannot say. We would have no check upon the Westralian Farmers as to whether they were sampling every bag or not until the bags came to the depot. Under the present system, whilst some wheat is above and some below f.a.q., the sub-agent, in order to make himself a good fellow with the farmer, may say, "I can pass a little wheat that is below standard because I can get some wheat that is above." The only way the general manager could prevent that would be to arrange for the sampling of every bag at the depot.

930. That was not agreed to later on?—No. In that connection the necessity for it, when all the wheat had been received, largely disappeared.

931. By Mr. HARRISON: Is not a bag sampling continued now?—It has been decided to take running bulk samples.

932. By the CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything to do with the Metcalf agreement?—I was a member of the board which considered it before sending it to the Minister.

933. Were you aware that there was a clause in that agreement to the effect that it was subject to the approval of Parliament?—Yes.

934. Therefore, Mr. Johnson could not do anything until the approval of Parliament had been given?—I thought I made that clear.

935. You said Parliament was responsible for the delay?—That is so. The agreement could not be put into operation until Parliament had passed it. Had Mr. Johnson remained in power I believe the agreement would have been at once submitted to Parliament. When Mr. Mitchell came in the agreement was set aside wand was not considered until after he had been to Melbourne, which was some months later.

936. You take an interest in the grading of wheat?—There is no need for that here yet.

937. You tried it previously in New South Wales?—Not as we understand grading in connection with bulk handling. I have done grading of wheat from the seedsman standpoint, which is a different thing.

938. Did you ever find that farmers who were taking special care to grade and clean their wheat in New South Wales, did not get additional benefit so far as price was concerned?—I know they would not get additional benefit. That is just evil of the present system, because the man who does good work does not get paid for it.

939. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Does he not get a better result?—The man who produces an article worth 3d. a bushel more, under the present system, does not get anything because the wheat has to be averaged with other wheat which is inferior.

940. By the CHAIRMAN: Is it advisable in your opinion that bulk handling should be carried on by the Government?—Until the existence of the present wheat scheme, which I think has removed one of the difficulties in connection with co-operative handling. I was in favour of the Government operating the whole scheme. In any case I am in favour of the Government controlling the scheme, so as to enable the farmer to obtain a negotiable document immediately he delivers his wheat to a country elevator.

941. Under what system would you work that control; would you have Government inspectors and a Government certificate?—In the original report published in this State that is the recommendation of the board because at that time we could not see just how proprietary or co-operative concerns could issue a certificate which would be worth its face value to any financial institution. Since the operation of the Pool, which has shown that by means of bonds of sufficient value this issuing of certificates can be deputed to reliable companies, I am now of opinion that it is possible to have the elevators owned and operated by co-operative companies, the inspection to be controlled by the Government.

942. The same as in Canada?—The system would be similar, but there are difficulties in this State which do not exist in Canada. Here we have a policy of decentralisation which means four ports instead of one. In Canada practically the whole of the wheat from a very large area has to come through Winnipeg, and in consequence the inspection staff can be stationed there and inspect the whole of the wheat coming past that centre.

943. Then, in your opinion, the bulk handling system could be better carried out by a co-operative body?—I do not say better; that is a matter of opinion, and I am not yet prepared to express a definite opinion upon this point, although I am inclined to favour that?

944. In reply to Mr. Allen you said you were not in favour of the Government taking full control because of the difficulties to be contended with under Government control. Would not that objection apply