1453. If a farthing per bushel could be saved to the farmer instead of going to a company , you would be prepared to save it ? — That farthing per bushel relly comes back to the farmer. Over the cost of the wheat it is not a great matter. I believe the majority of the wheat growers are shareholders in the Westralian Farmers. 1454. Is it not a limited company ? — Yes. 1455. By Mr.HARRISON : I understand the Westralian Farmers ltd now claim to be truly co-operative? — Yes. 1456. Is it a fact that a person putting either sales or purchases through that compamy whether he be a shareholder or not , derives a benefit from the gross returns of his trade? — I believe it is a fact , but i believe his first pund would have to go towards a share . After that he would get his distribution. 1457. Then he automatically becomes a shareholder? — It is possible for him to become automatically a shareholder. 1458. for that reason you think the Westralian Framers is a co-operative concern? — I do not think you will find anything more truly co-operative in the commonwealth , if you examine the articles of Association. (The Witness retired)

THOMAS SYDNEY JOHN HALL,Secretary State Wheat Marketing Scheme , sworn and exmined:

1459. By  the CHAIRMAN : I believe you are about to give us a statement in regard to the subject of this Commission's inquiry? The main criticism against the Scheme seems to have started towards the end of 1917,when important decisions were made by the Minister in control , which were strongly conceived to be in the interests of the Pool and of the State. The apparent grounds for criticism are: 1, The monopoly to Dalgety & Co of the selling agency of inferior wheat the objections being raised mostly bu other produce merchants and the Wetralian Farmers Ltd. 2,The construction of wheat depots instead of silos , the objectors in this instances appearing to be the Westralian Farmers ,, the Farmers' and Settlers ' Association and the local co-operative societies. 3, The alteration of the personnel of the Advisory Committee and the subsequent resignation of Mr. Hammond. Mr>Bickford retired at that time. Mr. Sibbald also resigned on the day the new advisory Board were appointed , but that is merely a coincidence. 4, The demand for an independent executive board ; that being raised by the Framers and settlers Association and the Perth Chamber of Commerce to the Minister in Control. 5,The demand for a special independent audit , or what we regard as aroving commission which was made by the Farmers and Settlets executive and the Perth Chamber of commerce. 6, The non-accpentance of the four old mercantile firms as wheat acquiring agents — Dalgety , Dreyfus , Bell and darling from whom the objection came. 7,The monopoly of acquisition by the Wetralian Farmers , the objectiors to this being the sub-agents of the old firms and the opponents of the co-operative movement.8 , The millers's gristing arrangements the principal objectors in this instance being the executive of the Farmers and settlers Association . 9, Objectors raised by the Wetralian Farmers to the proposed appointment of Mr.Keys as general manager. 10, The scale of dockages for inferiority the objectors being farmers and Settlers Association and the Wetralian Farmers Ltd. 11, Equitable payment to old agents for uncompleted services relative to the 1916-17 crop on the 31st December. 1917 , their stacks being then taken over by the Scheme. The objectors were the Framers and Settlers Association. 12, Maladministration by the present general manager which is alleged by the Wetralian Farmers. 13, The price of inferior wheat sold to poultry farmers.14, The storage charges amounting to £12,000 per year.