943. Do you not consider that if you saw crops growing there in different parts of the district you would regard it as sufficient proof that crops will grow?—If crops will grow, there is no need for experiments, but I have not seen them yet.

944. If they are there, you consider it sufficient proof that they will grow?—It is immaterial whether they are grown by the settlers or by the Government. I prefer that they should be grown by the settlers. If during a series of years the settlers can show that they can grow good crops, that is entirely satisfactory. My reason for suggesting that the Government should take up the matter was to ensure that the best methods would be employed. If there are settlers down there who understand and practise the best methods of cultivation, there is no need for the Government to do the work. It is far better that the Government should not do it.

945. Even in a district like that, which seems to be different from any other part of Western Australia, I presume you think it would be worthy of an experimental farm for the benefit of the district, if they were thinking of going ahead with it?—If that area is considered a suitable area for the production of wheat, my views are that there should be an experimental farm. I have already recommended that an area should be reserved for that purpose, because I hold the view that each climatic district of the State should possess its own experimental farm. That is what I expect will come some day and may come quickly when we recover from the depression consequent upon the war. I think it is the surest way of developing our agricultural area in the quickest possible way.

946. Do you not consider that the salt problem is really ridiculous in view of the fact that there is fresh water in the tanks?—I have never considered that the salt problem was one worth of serious consideration, from the evidence we have had regarding it.

947. By the CHAIRMAN: You say you were prepared to buy wheat from the settlers?—That was part of the promise of the Government to the settlers.

948. There are good many hundreds of bags of wheat in the district now, and the settlers have assured us that the Government would not buy them?—That was a promise made for the first year, and probably for the second year. I am not sure without referring to the file whether it continued after that. At all events, it does not hold good to-day. That meant such a serious loss to the State to purchase the wheat which was anticipated would be there, a loss of, say, 2s. 6d. a bushel, that I recommended the establishment of a small mill in the district to grist the wheat for the settlers, and let them dispose of it themselves.

949. By Mr. PADBURY: did anything come of that?—Yes. The Government had inquiries made as to suitable mills that were available for the purpose. One mill was recommended as a cheap mill, and on a recommendation, which was a reliable one, it was considered advisable to purchase one had the wheat been available. It was not available. Next year we found out that the mill was not as it was said to be, and then I went into the question. There is a report of mine about the purchase of a larger sized mill for the district on a co-operative basis.

950. By the CHAIRMAN: You were authorised to carry out the supervision of advances to the settlers, and you have stated that you have never expressed an opinion as to the capabilities of the land for growing wheat. Is that so?—Yes.

951. You have undertaken to supervise and direct farming pursuits in this particular district, and make advances to the settlers, but you have never undertaken to say whether the land was suitable or not for wheat growing?—I have not undertaken that.

952. You would not undertake to do that?—If I was instructed to do so.

953. You would undertake to supervise the financing of these farmers whether you considered it was a payable proposition or not. Is that so?—Not quite. If I had sufficient information at my disposal to warrant me in making a recommendation, I would not hesitate to do so. The policy of the Government was that they had decided that the district was fit for the production of wheat. They laid aside a certain amount of money for that purpose. It was my duty to carry out that policy, particularly as I was a newcomer in this State, and had no means of knowing whether the district was suitable or not. Mr. Paterson had expressed a doubt as to its suitability., and because of that doubt, I felt that the matter ought to be investigated. It is not a question of the soil only. Some soil , say in the wodjil country, will not grow wheat with an abundant rainfall, at all events profitably for the first six or seven years. On such good land as is found at Norseman one does not expect to grow wheat commercially because the rainfall is deficient. How could I be expected to express an opinion as to whether or not the district was suitable for growing wheat when I had had no experience regarding the rainfall. The rainfall records were available, and the Government said that these were sufficient. They said that is a suitable district. There is some salmon gum land at Grass Patch which is suitable land for the growing of wheat. The question is one of rainfall. I have indicated several factors which influence the growing of wheat. If there is a bad sequence of rainfall and good land, one cannot grow wheat, and if there is bad land and a good rainfall, one cannot grow it profitably either.

954. With your knowledge and experience I should have expected you to have given a pretty pronounced opinion as to the merits of the district and the possibilities of wheat growing there?—I could not form an opinion as to the possibility of wheat growing in the district from a knowledge of the soil alone.

955. By Mr. PADBURY: You had the rainfall and the soil to go by?—I had some rainfall records at Grass Patch and other places.

956. By the CHAIRMAN: There is not much reason to doubt that the rainfall records are correct?— It is a question of the sequence of the rainfall. In some cases the soil is all right and in some cases it is very bad.

957. By Mr. PADBURY: The mallee land down there is a fairly average sort of mallee land, is it not? The land is fairly uniform, say from Esperance 28 miles out on to Norseman?—No.

958. It is uniform of its kind. One may say there are three kinds of mallee. The first portion we come to is rather stunted in growth?—You mean from Esperance from Gibson's Soak. I should class that as very poor land.