THURSDAY,11TH , JANUARY, 1917.

(At Perth)

Present; Charles Edward Dempster, Esq.,Chairman. Matthew Thomas Padbury, Esq., Ranald McDonald, Esq.

              ______________________

EDWARD ALEXANDER MANN, Government Analyst, Chief Inspector of Explosives and Agricultural Chemist , sworn and examined:

965. By the CHAIRMAN : Have you ever visited the Esperance district?— Yes.

966. You have analysed a number of soils submitted to you by Mr. O'Brien?— Yes. I have here a synopsis of that work , and I thought it might be of some assistance to you to read it.

967. You may make a statement afterwards. when did you make the analysis?— In 1912.

968. Were you asked to write a report?— Yes.

969. Did all the samples analysed come from the Esperance district?— I do not know . They were simply sent to my laboratory and I analysed them. I was given to understand they came from Esperance.

970. Your report did not deal with the Esperance soils in particular?—It did.

971. You discussed certain subjects in the report , the standard .05 being suggested as a suitable one for salt. Does this standard apply to common salt, or was it intended for carbonate of soda?— Common salt.

972. Is this standard used in the other States of Australia?—Yes. That is all set out in the statement I have prepared.

973. Are you prepared to say that .05 of common salt would be too much for wheat growing?— No.

974. Did you adopt the .05 standard tentatively?— No.

975. Why did you suggest that experiments were needed in the Esperance district?— Because .05 was sufficient to indicate that the salt might be there in a dangerous quantity.

976. In your report you said you were making further experiments; could you give us the results of those?— They are set out in my statement. These photographs (produced) are referred to in that statement.

977. A number of soil samples were submitted to you by Professor Paterson on behalf of this Commission for analysis ; ate these the results of that analysis (produced)?— Yes. They are the figures I submitted to Professor Paterson.

978. Does this analysis include the amount of common salt? — Yes.

979. Would you be surprised to learn that good or fair crops were obtained with considerably more than .05 salt present?— No.

980. Take the average of the three sets of tables submitted by you. For example , refer to Nos. 2, 3, 5, 13, 18, and 23. All those samples were taken from land actually under crop. Can you account for sample 8 showing .378 and sample 9 showing .434 of salt present , although the samples came from bush land immediately adjoining good crops and not near any lake?—There are several possible explanations. The first explanation might be this : It is notorious that in testing land for salt you might have very striking differences within a few feet. There is also a very important point , which I have refereed to in my statement , that there are a number of ameliorating conditions which may be present in the soil , and which will help to counteract the effect of chlorides.

981. And in regard to samples 7, 14, and 20?— In No. 7 it is only just over 05. It is quite possible that in bush and uncultivated land you have a surface accumulation which is more severe on those lands than on the cultivated lands. You get great variations at short distances apart. There is nothing more difficult than to accurately sample large quantities of salt land. The effect of the salt has probably been largely counteracted by the large amount of lime which is present in many of these soils. I have referred to that in my statement.

982. Would the sulphate of soda found affect the crop and the land?— As regards sulphate of soda and carbonate of soda, and the two columns of figures appearing in the statement , I can take no responsibility for the latter. That is not the way to test soil for carbonate of soda or sulphate of soda. These figures were returned in this way at Professor Paterson's request , and I will not take any responsibility for any conclusion that may be drawn from them.

983. How much sulphate of soda do you consider a crop will stand?— From the American investigation it is not very bad. I am only speaking from memory when i Say that I think it is only half percent. It is not really considered as harmful an ingredient in the soil as others. It is what is known as white alkali. It is not so harmful as black alkali. I think it is very doubtful if there is any sulphate of soda in those lands. I am also doubtful whether there is carbonate of soda; at any rate it is not in dangerous quantities.

984. What is your experience of carbonate of soda in damaging crops?— It is well known to be very dangerous. It is the most harmful soil poison which can be present.

985. does the carbonate of soda, as stated in your analysis , actually exist in the soil?— I must ask you to note my protest. I do not state in my analysis that there is carbonate of soda in the soil. I have never said there is carbonate of soda in the soil, and the manner in which these figures have been presented to you is misleading.

986. Do you wish to revise those figures?— No. I was not asked to examine these soils to see if carbonate of soda was present. It is an important point. The samples are sent to me, and i am asked to make certain investigations. If I were asked to find out whether there was any carbonate of soda in the soils I should have known what to do. I was not asked