to do that, but to estimate the carbonic acid in the soil and then calculate in into carbonate of soda. It is an utterly inaccurate method of examining the soil. 987. Will you describe briefly the various methods of extraction of the salt employed in America and the other States of Australia?—The extraction is done with water. 988. By Mr. PADBURY: How is it generally done?—There is a variety of methods; there is no standard or prescribed method. The object is, of course, to apply such a method as to obtain as complete an extraction of the salt as possible. That method is generally used which gives the greatest amount of extraction. 989. By the CHAIRMAN: Would the method employed take all the salts out of the soil?—Not quite, but practically all. 990. In America are conventional methods in use for extracting the soluble salts?—No. 991. Would you consider it possible to judge the results by American standards for tolerance of crops unless you had employed the American methods in making your analyses?—Yes, provided the analyses are equally accurate. 992. Have you any other information to tender or comments to make likely to be useful to the Commission?—The only comments are those contained in the statement which I present to you, and which is as follows:—

In 1912 Mr. P. V. O'Brien, engineer for Goldfields Water Supply, was instructed to make a report on the Esperance district, and after consultation with me arranged for an officer of his department to take samples of the soil from various parts of the district to be analysed by me to determine their suitability for agriculture. The results were embodied in my report of June,1912, which is before the Commission. In interpreting the results of these analyses I naturally applied the standard for the analyses of soils which has been adopted and in use in my laboratory for a number of years. According to this standard a fertile soil should not contain more than .05 per cent. of sodium chloride or common salt. When I found that a large number of soils from the Esperance district greatly exceeded this limit in the amount of salt which they contained, I naturally as a matter of ordinary official duty drew attention to this point.It was an outstanding feature of the series of analysis that these soils contained a much higher proportion of common salt than is revealed by any other series of good wheat soils in this State. In view of this fact I pointed out that agriculture on such soil must be considered hazardous, unless carefully controlled and scientifically conducted experimental plots were established in various parts of the district to thoroughly test the growing capacity of the soil. I desire to emphasise this point since it has been alleged that I had condemned the Esperance lands, whereas my report simply sounded a note of warning as to a certain condition which should not be overlooked.Any limits which are placed upon the allowable quantity in a soil of harmful constituents are determined by a large variety of circumstances:— (a) The physical character of the soil, composition, mechanical condition, capillarity, etc. (b) Climate, the amount and distribution of the rainfall, evaporation, etc. (c) The nature of the crops to be grown. (d) Topography of the ground, drainage, etc. While a chemical analysis of the soil therefore will indicate directions in which special care may have to be exercised, the final judgement of the soil (except in extreme cases) could only be formed by an appeal to practical trials. Such trials to be of any final value, however, must be conducted with the highest skill, and in the most careful and systematic manner. This was the attitude which I adopted in my report of 1912, and had that report been other than a purely departmental document, I would have elaborated my remarks to a greater extent, but this attitude is, I think, sufficiently indicated by the concluding paragraph of my report. My conclusions and recommendations have been subject to considerable criticism, and the standard which I adopted has been specially combated by Mr. O'Brien in the report which he forwarded covering my recommendations. Other authorities have been quoted to show that my fears were unfounded, and to indicate that the standard adopted in my laboratory is not a reasonable one. The matter has become of far more public interest than was anticipated at the time of the original inquiry, and the discussion to which it has given rise has accentuated my sense of responsibility for the recommendations which I previously made. Realising the importance of the matter not only to the settlers on the Esperance lands, but also to the State as a whole, I have again gone most carefully into the whole question, and examined fully all available authorities on the matter with a view to discovering any grounds which might exist for modifying my previous views, and to ascertain if possible whether the warning uttered in 1912 was founded upon insufficient data. I regret to say that the fullest possible search has resulted not only in confirming my previous opinion, but has shown that even stronger justification exists than I previously supposed for thorough and searching experimentation to ascertain the true character of these lands. As the matter is of great importance, I venture to lay before the Commission the following evidences upon which a standard for soil has been based:— (A).—The standard for fertile soil adopted in my report of June, 1912 (.05 per cent. common salt) is the standard which has been employed in agricultural analysis in this State for the last 13 or 14 years, and is the same as that used by Dr. Pearson, for many years, agricultural chemist in Victoria. After adopting it in this State, it was confirmed in the year 1905 by some pot experiments conducted in my laboratory, which showed that wheat plants were seriously affected by this proportion of salt. (B).—A further series of experiments in pots was made from York, Pingelly, and Kellerberrin respectively. The result of these experiments which