Mr. J. M. Craig, continued.

1425. By Hon. R. G. Burges: How many acres of country are infested about Norseman?—I cannot say, except from the reports; but all round the lakes the country is infested, I believe; around Lake Cowan and Widgiemooltha and higher up.

1426. By Mr. Wittenoom: Do you not think if there were a good number of rabbits on a station that it would be to the man's own interests not to say much about it?——Undoubtedly. Ponton, a few years ago, when he put his station up for sale, had rabbits on that station; but he did not say so. All the rabbits have been killed since through.

1427. By Hon. R. G. Burges: Would you be surprised to know that 500 rabbits have been seen at Norseman?—I would not believe it: I know what the reports are. I have reports before me from the most reliable sources. We have evidence of rabbits at Yerilla, from what was said to be a most reliable source; but it turned out to be not worth a rap. When I knock about the country in search of scab, I get the most sensational reports; but they are not worth anything. People like to exaggerate.

1428. Mr. Richardson: You say that, as a matter of principle, you take very little notice of the alarming reports. Does it not occur to you that on a serious question like the rabbit invasion, the consequence of which, if true, would be very alarming, the line of safety lies more in the direction of attaching some credence to the reports than not doing so?—But the reports ought to be sifted. If a man tells you that he has seen 600 rabbits in Norseman, what matters if it it 60 or 600?

1429. But, if it were reported to the captain of a steamer that a dangerous reef lay across his path, even if he thought that there was not much in the report, he would not ignore it, but he would take precautions to protect himself from the danger in case the report were true.—Oh! but there is a vast difference. There are hundreds of men applying for "billets," and to justify their claim for appointment they will tell you there are rabbits. We have had it over and over again magnifying the dangers.

1430. I have no doubt about that; but what I am afraid is that perhaps the Government have gone on the lines of discounting everything, and minimising the reports as an excuse for inaction rather than becoming alarmed about it themselves?—I think it has always been recognised that rabbits will spread themselves over the country.

1431. By Mr. Harper: Coming back to the Amending Act of 1895, I would like to ask you a question: That Act says:— Every inspector appointed by the Governor under the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall, not later than the last day of June in each year, send in a report to the Governor, containing particulars as to whether any, and, if any, what number of rabbits have been reported to him or are known by him to exist in his district, and what steps he has taken for their destruction: which report shall be laid before the Legislative Council at the next sitting thereof. How many inspectors were there who could have sent in the reports?—Only the one permanently appointed.

1432. You say he sent in reports monthly?—Yes.

1433. If, at the end of the year, he was required to send in a report to fulfil these instructions, would he have written out a fresh report or sent in these monthly reports bound in one?—He was bound to send all the monthly reports in.

1434. Do you consider the instruction that this report was to be laid before the Legislative Council as instruction to your Department?—I would have thought it was the Inspector employed, but it was my duty as head of the Department to send in the report.

1435. Would you supply it to the Legislative Council?—Only what I received from the Inspector.

1436. Would you supply it Legislative Council or send it direct to the Minister?—To the Minister.

1437. Therefore it is not your Department which is responsible for laying these reports before the Legislative Council, but the Minister for Lands?—The Minister of Lands, I think. All the papers have been before Parliament, I think.

1438. THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the question.

1439. By Mr. Harper: If the Minister put all these reports together and laid them before Parliament, you think this Amending Act would have been complied with?—Yes.

1440. By Mr. Richardson: If the Minister withheld them, Mr. Craig's Department was not to blame?—There would have to be some new legislation.

1444. By the Chairman: It seems that we have had legislation, but it has been utterly discarded?—The reports are the only things I know that have been furnished in the particular form. You must remember that I only got £ 500 for that Department.

1442. There is another point I wish to ask you about: We were inquiring about the class of country through which some of these lines of fences would go, and you gave us one very strong definite opinion that the usefulness of these fences would be very much minimised by the sand drift, and in support of the argument you said you had seen a Mr. Hands, who gave you what you consider reliable information. We have been unable to get Mr. Hands?— I saw him just now.

1443. Can you tell us if Mr. Hands travelled over this particular country?— He said he had been over it and had to turn back.

1444. By Mr. Richardson: Whereabouts?—The Kimberleys.

1445. By The Chairman: Do you know if he has ever been within 500 miles of this country? How far do you take it to be from the proposed fence? Did he not go from Queensland to Kimberley?—Yes. He came out in West Kimberley and explored there, and made an effort to get down, but was stopped by the desert.