received by me were quite normal soil. It may have been reasonable and proper to sample such places to find out how frequently they occurred. It is necessary in examining the country generally to do this to see what the soils are like. 1029. But they could not be called patches of wheat- growing country. are those sample included in those taken from the district?—I am not giving you the salt pans. 1030. But the patches we are speaking of are salt patches?—Am I to infer that the majority of the samples of the soil taken Esperance were taken from the salt like? 1031.By the CHAIRMAN: Not the majority, but some—I do not know what proportion?—In that case it seems to me that carelessness must have been shown in the original sample of the country. 1032. By Mr. PADBURY: Do you mean the original samples?—Yes. 1033. By the CHAICMAN: We do not say the majority, but a proportion?—Of the original samples, 93 per cent, Contained .05 and 33 per cent, contained .02, so that unless the majority of them were taken from salt pans, the conclusion I have drawn must be taken as justified. 1034. By Mr. McDONALD: It seems to us that most of the original analyses were made on the natural assumption that the samples were taken from places where the land could reasonably be cultivated?—Quite. 1035. And some came from the edge of the salt lakes, and some from salt pans?—I cannot say where they were taken from. If I am asked to make a report on a large number of samples of soil to judge of the character of a district, I must infer that the samples are taken in the district, and if the samples are taken in an reasonable manner to judge of the nature of the district, and if the samples were wrongly taken, then I cannot be responsible for that. 1036. I understand the object of the person taking the samples from these salt places was to find out how much salt the wheat would stand .There seems to be a missing link between the person who took the samples and the chemist who analysed them, and that is the reason you say that the expect who is going to report on the samples should take the samples himself?—H e should at least know fully where they came from. 1037 By Mr. PADBURY: Who asked you to report originally?—It was arranged between Mr. O'Brien and myself. Mr. O' Brien was instructed by his Minister, who was also my Minister at that time, to make a full inquiry into the Esperance lands. It was to embrace a number of features—water supply, railway, it also included a report on the harbour, and it had to include a survey of the soil .He was to take samples of the soil, and have them tested to get an idea of the general capabilities of the district. Mr. O'Brien consulted with me and arranged for me to make an analysis of the soils. He said that Mr. Middleton would take the samples, and if I remember aright, I gave him some instructions as to how the sample should be taken. Mr. middleton took a large number of samples and sent them to me in a bag, and I knew nothing of where the samples came from. It would be misleading to ask a chemist to make a report on a district unless he knew where the samples came from, and I naturally understood that the sample which he took were generally representative of the district, representing the different classes of soil in that district .On that basis I was justified in presenting a general report. Mr. O'Brien looked to me as Government Agricultural Chemist, as I would look to him as an expert in water supply. Unfortunately, in having to argue these point in this way, it puts me in the position of devil's advocate" in having condemned soils, and then having to fight to prove that the soil were bad. I have no such attitude to take up.