acreage. This information is open for inspection by any person interested. The Act goes on to provide that if within the period of one month after the publication, a petition signed by a majority of the owners of irrigable land within the district is presented, opposing the work, the Minister shall not carry out the work. If such a petition is not presented the Minister is empowered to proceed with the work. A number of people were appointed to represent the Harvey residents who were interested, and the Minister arranged that instead of these people proceeding to Perth to view the documents the Under Secretary and I should take everything down there, and explain matters.

12157. What are the details of the agreement ?—There was no signed agreement ; there was no agreement necessary.

12158. But there must have been an agreement signed or unsigned ?—Yes, I think there was an agreement inasmuch as the Harvey people, after hearing the description agreed to the proposal and said it would be suitable. Otherwise there was no agreement. They refrained from preparing a petition, and consequently at the expiration of the month formalities were gone through and the scheme decided upon.

12159. Why did Mr. Trethowan and you go down to Harvey instead of following the procedure laid down in the Act ?—Simply to avoid the expense and inconvenience of a number of people having to come up to Perth.

12160. What are the details of the scheme which were laid before the people on that day ; to which were they asked to commit themselves, seeing that they either had to accept or reject something ?—The plan was produced showing the details of the work ; the estimate of the cost was given and a long description of the scheme was read and explained by me. That description is contained in my report, Appendix 1, of the Engineer in Chief's report, Water Supply File 2204/14, Vol. 2.

12161. Then this estimate of yours constitutes and agreement arrived at with the Harvey people?—I take it that way.

12162. Were the Harvey people supplied with a copy of this minute ?—I could not say that, but in all probability they were. They had a copy of the estimate.

12163. The people at Harvey considered that this was the agreement arrived at between the parties. First that the Government undertook for £34,000 to put up a weir, provide channels and supply water to the highest point, over an agreed upon area of 3,310 acres?—Yes, that was the area stated; at that time a portion of it was unsurveyed. A more recent survey altered the figures to those which I gave earlier.

12164. The price agreed upon was £34,000 and the annual rate was to be 17s. 6d. an acre ?—Yes it was stated that the rate would be about that. Of course, that was for the first year. That was as far ahead as could then be agreed upon.

12165. The settlers there told us, and it is borne out by your minute that by agreement £2,800 was to be reserved by joint arrangement between the parties to line certain channels shown on that plan. Is that correct?—Yes, but it was not a joint arrangement.

12166. It was an agreement between the parties?—There was an item on the estimates for cemented channels to be used as required.

12167. We also gathered that it was agreed that where planted orchards were encountered underground pipes were to be used ?—There was no agreement. A certain amount of piping was shown on the plan which was put in for the purpose of avoiding inconvenience in connection with planted orchards.

12168. You say there was no agreement at the time, and you say that the agreement was the minute to which you refer us, and which seems to be the only record between the parties. In that minute it is clearly set forth that pipes were to be employed?—It was understood that pipes were to be employed as shown on the plan and as appearing in the estimate.

12169. And was it also agreed that the pipe was to be employed right through the river channel ?—Yes, that was the portion of the proposal.

12170. I understand that for reasons which need not be gone into at the moment the arrangement with regard to carrying pipes though planted orchards and carrying the water along the river channels through pipes was not carried out. What is the estimated saving, taking into account the work which was done in substitution?—The Engineer in Chief shows as estimate in his report of £2,520. I am inclined to think that figure is rather high for the reason that the line of the pipes was on the natural line of the flow, that is to say, they followed the ridges though the blocks. The channels, when they were made, and, in many cases they were made at the instance of the particular settler, were made on the boundaries in lower ground, and required a considerable amount of filling, so that there was an appreciable expense incurred in that way. I might further say on that point, in the arrangement made with the Harvey people it was clearly explained as was explained in my report when speaking of the use of pipes, that it was impossible to definitely say how much pipe would be used. These are the words which were used :—"After explaining the arrangement of the pipes, this is as far as it is possible to go at present, the actual arrangement for any particular block will depend largely upon the owner's predeliction for grading or, on the other hand, for piping. At the present time there are wide differences of opinion upon this point and it will be necessary to take each case up with the owner when the time arrives." In the Act it is provided that the Minister has the right to go on any land and carry out works, but that, in doing so, he shall cause as little inconvenience and damage as possible, and that compensation will be payable to any owner. Having that point of view it was considered desirable as the works proceeded to endeavour to make definite arrangements with each other so as to, as far as possible, clearly define the possibility of claims, and indemnities were obtained in nearly every instance where the channels went though properties and where the alteration was made from pipe to channel, an agreement was signed by the owner to the effect that he agreed to the alteration. In some cases the owners objected strongly to the arrangement of the pipe. I mention that because the Harvey people collectively claim that the pipes should have been put in, whilst the Harvey people