unsatisfactory sequence of rainfall, the defective clearing of mallee roots, or the poverty of the soil. Had you then considered the rainfall records?—Of course, such as I had at my disposal.

914. The rainfall seems to be very satisfactory so far as we can gather, for the past 14 years during the growing months. Did you find that to be the case?—I had records and some did not appear to be satisfactory.

915. By Mr. McDONALD: For the years you were dealing with?—Yes.

916. By the CHAIRMAN: The rain record over the seven growing months, April to October, at Seaddan was 10.50?—I referred to the sequence, the monthly rainfall.

917. By the CHAIRMAN: The records show May 209 points, June 198, July 245, August 190, September 197, October 205; those averages are over 14 years?—I am not speaking of averages, but the sequence. For instance, in 1912 there was light rainfall in August and September, 93 points.

918. Taking them on the average, you would say they were quite satisfactory?—I would say that is quite enough to grow wheat provided it came regularly.

919. By Mr. McDONALD: Take 1913, there was good rain in April, and very little right along to August; that was unsatisfactory that year?—Yes, but it is not so unsatisfactory as the absence of rain at the end of the season. Another thing I referred to was that when the crop was ripe in one or two years they got very heavy rains.

920. They got heavy rain in 1914-15 in September. That is no use?—Yes.

921. By the CHAIRMAN: Take Seaddan. The average rainfall for 14 years is remarkably good, is it not?—It is a very good rainfall.

922. All through the growing periods, too?—Yes. However, one cannot judge entirely from rainfall records. The possible causes of failure which I indicated, I still think possible causes. I do not think the rainfall can be cut out of the reasons I gave.

923. In your letter to the Minister you stated it was obvious than the standard of .05 for salt was not a reasonable one?—The reasons I gave were really used to show that there were causes other than the salinity to show that the standard of .05 was not a reasonable one, and that those others were contributory causes.

924. Do you believe that cereal growing can be successfully carried out down there in the mallee lands?—I am not in a position to say. I would prefer to see Mr. William Paterson's suggestion for experiment with good methods carried out.

925. You do not think sufficient experimenting has been done?—I do not know of any that has been done.

926. Do you think Grass Patch is a typical country?—It is a grass patch, but a lot of the farm is similar to other country I saw there. Except the very best methods are used, one cannot say whether the country is suitable for wheat growing.

927. You have not yourself inspected the growing crops there just before harvest time?—No, but I have always had reports from the inspector as to the harvest.

928. By Mr. PADBURY: Do you not think the land down there requires more super and seed than you have recommended?—I have no reason to suppose that. Some of the poorer land might require other fertiliser in addition to super.

929. Do you think 45 lbs. of seed is an average quantity for people in other parts of the State?—In the drier parts, yes, but in the wetter parts it would be more. For the last few years there has been a tendency to reduce the quantity.

930. Were not many of the people in other parts of the State using up to a bushel and a half?—When I first came here they were.

931. Does not new mallee country require more than old country?—The question is dependent upon quite a number of factors. Speaking generally, I would not say it is the case.

932. The country down there does not seem to stool out so much?—I do not know that that would be a reason for using more seed.

933. Can you get the average without the stems?—I believe at Merredin this year, where we never use more than 45 lbs. and have been so low as 20 lbs., they are getting 24 bushels. I have harvested over 30 bushels from 30 lbs. of seed. That was in New South Wales.

934. But you might go to those limestone hills at Gingin or at Yatheroo, and with a quarter of bushel get a good spread?—With average conditions there is considerable latitude as to seed. It does not matter much whether we use 40 lbs. or 60 lbs. At Narrogin, where we get rather cold, wet winters, and excessive weed growth, we find it necessary to use more seed, but those conditions are not characteristic of the wheat belt.

935. If it has to go through a cold, wet time you think more seed is required?—At Narrogin it is increase in order to contend with the weed growth. Those are special conditions.

936. You mentioned that the settlers had not paid back. Do you not think it is impossible under the conditions for them to do so?— It has proved impossible.

937. Would it not be impossible under the best conditions for them to pay back seed and super after paying expenses—No; if it is, then wheat growing is not profitable.

938. Could it be made profitable down there without a railway?—It would be extremely difficult if they are to have wages for themselves. It was the settlers themselves who considered they would be able to do it when those arrangements were made.

939. Did not they expect a railway?—That factor did not come into play, because we undertook to buy the wheat the first year as if a rialway were in existence.

940. The suckers seem to be the greatest drawback down there?—They are a great drawback.

941. Has it not been the general condition in mallee land that it takes three or four years to get rid of the suckers unless they are properly grubbed out?—If the settler gets a good burn with the first crop it is of great influence in keeping down the suckers. The suckering on mallee land is the chief trouble.

942. According to information received it takes three or four years to get rid of them even with the aid of fires?— If there is a good fire in the first year the trouble of keeping down the suckers is not a great one.