tives, but we could extend this to include Geraldton and Bunbury.

(The witness retired)

WILLIAM HERBERT HOPE, chief Clerk in the Railway Department, sworn and examined:

10176. By Mr CLARKSON: Can you tell us what is the incidence of the minimum rates?---Do you mean in regard to the special classes? We have minimums for special classes, but they are not affected.

10177. I refer to the special classes in particular?---The object of the minimum tonnage per truck is to try and ensure that the load of the truck will return a reasonable revenue. Take the mineral class which is the lowest ordinary class, Class M, there is a minimum of five tons per wagon, that is, that the five tons at the special rate quoted will afford some return to the department for the load carried. One of the bases of the rates would be the weights carried.

10178. Dealing more particularly with the agricultural industry and the minimum rates as to grain, you reserve the privilege of filling the trucks?---We reserve the privilege but, as far as I know, unless from a large station like Perth, it is a privilege very rarely availed of. If a truck is going from Perth with one or two tons in it, and we have other loading going to the same destination, we will load that truck to its carrying capacity, but as a general rule the department has not the opportunity of loading the trucks to their full carrying capacity, unless from large centres such as Perth, Fremantle, or Bunbury.

10179. Therefore you do not take that factor into consideration in assessing the rates?---We could not. Say a truck should contain six tons, we would not object to two or three senders or consignees, as a matter of act, clubbing together and loading that truck, and as long as it is consigned in one name they get the benefit of the lowest rate.

10180. How do the minimum rates work in regard to parcels, because several times in our travels to country districts we have been told by settlers that the minimum rates work heavily in regard to small consignments?---You mean small consignments coming through the goods. We have minimum charges running up to three cwt. These charges are higher than the ordinary tonnage rates for goods carried. If you take goods which would be carried at 25s. per ton, 3cwt. would not work out 25s. a ton but on a higher scale. This principle is adopted on all railways, it is not peculiar to Western Australia, but obtains throughout the railway world. The reason is that the booking are different things connected with small consignment are just the same as if the truck were loaded.

10181. Do you think the commissioner's risk which carries an additional rate is necessary?---We will put it the other way about--there is a lower rate for goods at owner's risk:

10182. What is the reason of that extra rate?---It is not an extra rate for commissioner's risk, but we have a lower rate given for owner's risk. We have had a good deal of correspondence about that and I think if the Commission look at it from a fair point of view they will see that a lot of the criticism levelled against the department is quite unfair. Take, for instance, fruit and grain, and say we carry it at owner's risk, they want it sent at Commissioner's risk they pay an additional 10 per cent, on the owner's rate, and the Commissioner takes the risk. In large consignments it is altogether in favour of the customer. As far as the Commissioner is concerned I am sure he would be glad if owner's risk were done away with except in regard to goods which, by some reason of their nature go at owner's risk, such as kerosene and bricks, but for ordinary merchandise for which he can take the risk, and does, if required, he would be more pleased to take the risk of the load. It would be at an additional freight charge, and then any loss or damage would be paid for. We have more complaints on that score from small customers than enough. A man sends for a bag of flour; it comes at owner's risk by paying an extra 1s., regard to parcels; an extra 3d. will give the commissioner an additional liability up to £10, but there is not one per cent. who will pay the charge.

10183. Then we can take it that the owner's risk charge represents the actual haulage and the Commissioner's an extra charge as insurance?---Yes.

10184. By Mr PAYNTER: Is it not a reflection on the department that it cannot depend on goods being carried safely from point?---In England the judges have laid down that the railway companies have a perfect right to charge an insurance rate to provide against the dishonesty of their servants. We have some thousands of employees and, of course, in a large number there must be some dishonest and some careless, and we have also to provide against the acts of outside persons.

10185. Why should the man placing his business on the railways pay for that insurance---why should not the Commissioner insure with someone outside?---Then he would have to make a higher charge. If goods were all carried at Commissioner's risk, the Commissioner must at once revise the whole of the rates on that new principle. A person who is doing a large business with the department must always take owner's risk, for he says if I lose a truck or two in the year I have saved the cost in additional freight.

10186. Is it a rule all over the world to have two rates?---Yes; it is a recognised principle.

10187. By Mr CLARKSON: In case of claim for loss under owner's risk, would you invariably on principle refuse to pay or investigated, owner's risk or not, although the Commissioner, being a public officer, is bound in a way to act on a set principle. Where it can be established that the loss has been occasioned by gross negligence on the part of the servants of the Commissioner he has directed the claim to be paid, although legally he is not liable.

10188. A good many cases have been tested in the courts?---Yes.

10189. BY Mr VENN: And they generally go against you on owner's risk?---No. I think the owner's risk condition is well laid down by the Supreme Court judgements.

10190. By Mr PAYNTER: They do not look on the Commissioner as a common carrier?---He is, but one of the powers he has is to impose the owner's risk rate. In the case of Silbert & Sharp in 1906 the Judge clearly laid down the rule in regard to owner's risk and we have followed that.

10191. By Mr CLARKSON: As to claims for loss of stock in transit, if you carried a truck from a