soever in connection with the handling of inferior wheat, neither have the Scheme had any occasion for complaint against us in this connection 5062. By Mr . HARRISON: Has the month of June this season been unusually wet compared with the same month of two previous season?— I would prefer that the weather bureau should answer that question. Down here June has been the wettest month we have had for years. The delivery month are December to May and the work is not finished yet. In former years, before hampering restrictions were imposed, there was none of this trouble. This year's difficulties are not due to our inexperience. I flatly deny the suggestion that the condition in which the wheat has been coming forward to Perth is due to our own inexperience, or the inexperience of the subagent. It is simply the result of the conditions under which we are forced to operate, the restriction that have been imposed upon us and the dual control by Messrs, Dalgety and ourselves, with interference at sidings from the Scheme's officers. When we make recommendations herein to the Scheme, with a view of effecting improvement, we are told that we are young and inexperienced, and that we should not dictate to an officer with 'technical knowledge." Mr .Keys has also given the Commission a misleading reply in the case of question no.4076 in which he suggests that if a stack has been flooded from below the bottom of the stack would be almost useless for any purpose. The case of Badjaling and the sale of wheat to Messrs. Hatch Bros., to which Mr Solomon drew your attention, is an instance of a Stack of Dreyfus' 1916-17 season which was flood-water damaged. This disproves Mr .Keys' contention in the reply given to the Commission. Mr. Keys suggests that we instructed our representative at Minnievale not to bag pick-up wheat. That is not correct. We instructed agents not to bag refuse, or wheat that was in such a condition that malting and fermentation would render same valueless on arrival in Perth. 5063. By the CHAIRMAN: Did your company at any time instruct any of our agents not to pick up wheat of this kind?— We have the answer to that here in this statement. 5064. Did you ever issue instructions to your agents not to pick-up wheat ?—No. We have suggested to the Scheme since the beginning of the winter season that the matter be discussed as between them and Messrs . Dalgety and ourselves, but our advices in this connection also have been completely ignored. In this, as in all other suggestions we tender to the Scheme, we are treated on the" elephant-fly" policy. It will be one of the best things that ever happened for all concerned if commission can force the Scheme to "scrap-heap" their methods in this matter. The handling of the inferior wheat will never be satisfactory till they do. In reference to the instance Mr .Keys quotes at Carnamah, no responsibility attaches to us in this connection as this wheat was sold with the approval of Messrs. Dalgety & Company. Our letter to the Scheme is dated the 23rd July, and reads as follows, viz.:— Re truck Account 345 ex Three Spring — Replying to your query in connection with this particular truck. we have to advise that Mr. Berrigan, our contractor for Carnamah and Three Springs, informs us that 65 bags received at Perth Yards early last week consisted of portion of 140 bags purchased by him ex Bell's Carnamah stack, with Dalgety & Co 's approval, and the balance was made up of chicken feed direct from harvester (grown by Mr. Berrigan), the truck being consigned to St Bridget's Convent, West Perth. With regard to the care of 1916-17 season stacks, Mr. Keys advised the Commission that he had just received a wire from his inspector at Korrelocking saying that the stack there had been neglected. I have here a letter in connection with this matter just received from our inspector, viz.:— In accordance with your instructions, I visited Kerrelocking and inspected the wheat stacks under your care. I can unhesitatingly say that the caretaker, Hopson was doing good work. The loose wheat was properly cleaned up and two portions of the roof which had recently been blown off had been replaced, and, with the exception of repairs to the screens caused by the recent rough weather, no one but a carping critic could find fault. The roof of Bell & Co's stack has subsided in places badly, and there were slight depressions on the other roofs, but generally speaking they were in good order, and certainly not in a neglected state. On arrival at a Korrelocking, I found the Government inspector (Mr . Pearse) and one man already at work, with Hopson assisting and immediately afterward two others were brought by Mr. Pearse from Wyalcatchem. Mr. Pearse informed me that he intended to strip and re-grade the Westralian Farmers' last stack, and also to re-roof with fresh timber Bell & Co's stack, as he considered that in the face of the fact that the stacks would remain for a considerable time, that the work was necessary. Taking his view of the case and the departmental knowledge he may possess, I could not criticise his action; but I say that for the present the roof was satisfactory. The caretaker here had no knowledge that the Scheme intended doing the work, and was surprised to see a gang of men put on, but he cheerfully obeyed the instruction of Mr . Pearse, and is now working in harmony with him . In conclusion, I must state that the present condition of the stack did not warrant the Scheme in sending an officer to take the working out of our hands. This is an excerpt of letter received from P. W. Hopson, Korrelocking, 31st July, 1918:— Inspector Pearse, when looking around the stacks on Tuesday morning, said, " Why, these stacks are not too bad. I thought they were in a devil of a state by the report the inspector sent to us." Mr. Pearse said he did not know I was here . He said their inspector said the stacks were in a very bad state, and the iron off the roof in places, and that there was no one here to look after them. Had their inspector looked around all the stacks in the yard he would have seen me, as I was going around the stacks with the co-operation secretary when the goods train came in that the inspector was on. The train did not stay in the yard more than ten minutes, and when the secretary and myself came out from the under the screen at one stack we could see him at the other end of the yard, and by the time we got there he was on the train, So that all I saw of him was his back, and the iron that he reported being off was all on before night. Inspector Pearse said that I had done good work at Ardath and all along that line, and that he was quite satisfied with the work I had done here up to the time he came, and since he has been here I have done my best to help him with the work, and we are working longer hours so as to get the job over .There would have been nothing to justify the Scheme's interference if their inspector had come to me instead of coming in one yard and out the other. How significant it is that the only occasion on which Mr . Keys should take it into his head to interfere with our care of the stacks should be while he was giving evidence before the Commission. He has not noticed us that there was anything wrong at Korrelocking, and prior to receiving a wire from our inspector we had received no intimation from him of the action he proposed taking .In fact, we have not yet received any letter whatsoever from him on the matter. I find that the Imperial Government pay the Scheme ⅜d . per bushel per month for caring for the stacks and the Scheme generously allowed us one-sixteenth of a penny for a period of three, and subsequently ½d. for care for six months .The contract is striking ! 5065.In regard to the inferior wheat from Dumbleyung which Mr . Murray declared .was sold at a profit, Mr . Keys says it was sold at Is 1d. a bag and that the man who bought it showed a loss of 30s .Apparently this wheat did not realise the amount claimed? —I do not know wether it is the identical truck. We get our sample from them, and I take it we get our price from Dalgety's. 5066. I understood you say that , that was the sample sent to your office? —I cannot say wether it was from the identical truck. 5067. These bags must have been kept separate ,because they were sold at a lower rate? —This particular.