THE AGRICULTURAL BANK AND THE MALLEE DISTRICT.

A striking feature of the evidence is the faith in the district displayed by the settlers and other witnesses examined. Practically the only adverse testimony recorded is that of the Agricultural Bank trustees, and the Commission deems it wise and reasonable to make more than passing reference to the evidence and reports from them.

Comments on Report of Railways Advisory Board.—The Managing Trustee of the Bank (Mr. Paterson) in his capacity as Chairman of the Agricultural Railways Advisory Board, submitted a minority report against a railway being constructed. Disregarding the advice of two such prominent and experienced professional men as the late Mr. H. F. Johnston and Mr. John Muir, the Government of the day saw fit to adopt Mr. Paterson's recommendation. The report is published in the Appendix hereto.

The information before the Commission endorses the soundness of the majority report, and his own evidence tends to discount the value of Mr. Paterson's report. For example, in support of his contention that the mallee land is not a satisfactory wheat producing country, he relied upon the statement of Messrs Hewby and May that they "were unable to report a better yield in one year than 21½ cwt. of hay per acre;" whereas Mr. Gollan in evidence stated that he had a return of two tons per acre from fallowed ground. Again, Mr. Thompson in evidence affirmed that in the year 1905 he averaged 2¼ tons per acre from 106 acres of fallowed land.

Continuing his report, Mr. Paterson made a reference to the likelihood of difficulties arising in connection with water supplies. This was subsequently disproved by the Engineer for Goldfields Water Supplies' report (also published in the Appendix hereto) and by the construction of dams by the Government and the settlers. While Mr. Paterson in evidence acknowledged and the incorrectness of his former impressions regarding water supplies, he qualified the admission by adding "I do not know that some of the tanks are not salt even now."

Again, Mr. Paterson in his minority report, when advocating caution in opening up the district, referred to the "conflicting accounts of the Esperance harbour as a safe port for the shipment of wheat for export in large vessels." Against this we submit the following extracts from his evidence before this Commission:—

Q. What reports exist to your knowledge concerning the Esperance harbour? A. I know nothing about it. I did not go into the matter. Q. You do not know of any reports? A. I believe there are some, but did not bother about them. Q. You said something about "conflicting reports?" A. I never read the reports; that may have been rumoured.

The evidence of Captain A. E. Douglas, whose expert knowledge of the subject is worthy of respect, is to the effect that the existing jetty will meet requirements for the next few years, and that at the site of the proposed new jetty 36 feet of water is obtainable. He characterises Esperance as the best all round harbour along the South coast.

Mr. Paterson's report further recommended test cultivations over three years to prove the wheat growing possibilities of the district. The absurdity of attempting to determine the prospects of a mallee district in such a brief period (especially in respect of that portion to be rolled during the year preceding cultivation) will be apparent to anyone acquainted with modern farming methods in mallee country.

Turning then to Mr. Paterson's evidence, which appears on pages 60~62, the following extracts indicated the extent of his personal knowledge of mallee conditions:—

Q. Have you visited the district recently? A. No. Q. Have you visited the South Australian mallee country? A. I have run through it on the railway, but that was mostly at night time. I have made no special comparison between the two countries. Q. Has it ever occurred to you that the conditions between the two States are similar in respect to this class of country. A. No. I was not bothering about the similarity of conditions. The two States are not like. Q. What is your opinion of the class of settlers on the mallee to-day? A. I only know Lewis. Q. The Bank probably knows them? A. They have never come near the Bank. I have not seen their methods, and I do not know anything about them.

From this, it is reasonable to assume that the Chairman of the Railways Advisory Board was not closely acquainted with the subject upon which he ventured advice.

In passing, it may be stated that at the date of the report (March, 1911), Messrs. Johnston and Muir estimated the railway could be constructed for £1,700 per mile, including water supply, or a total for the 60 miles of £102,000, whilst the estimate of the Public Works Department (Upon which a start was made to build the line) amounted to £171,000, or an increase in cost of £69,000.