7371. If there was anything in existence it would be recorded in some way? — The contract is that the wheat was supplied and the resultant flour was delivered and paid for.

7372. I am speaking of the unmilled portion. Have they paid for any wheat; if they had not actually purchased the wheat and there was no agreement of any description, what claim could possibly be put up for them to get the 2½ per cent. commission? — I do not know what they have a legal claim, but they have a moral and an equitable claim, not necessarily for the 2½ per cent. commission. They have a moral claim to insist on the completion of an implied agreement, even though it has not been specifically stated. . 7373. I understand from you that the quota was fixed by themselves. It is usual for a man to fix his own contract and make his claims under it himself? — Mr. Sibbald would say to the millers, "We want a certain amount put on board a certain boat; it will take 6,000 to 7,000 tons; arrange amongst yourselves as to what each mill will supply." To that suggestion of Mr. Sibbald's the millers agreed to respective quotas from month to month. They said, "Our quotas are so much," and I believe it is on a record that they sent this list to Mr. Sibbald, and he said, "Very good, we regard that as the quotas of the different mills." That would be the basis of the implied contract. . 7374. Those quotas are on the file? — I think so.

7375. By Mr. HARRISON: If the quota was fixed by the Miller's Association and divided amongst the various mills and then particular mills were not able to comply with the quota allotted, what claim would those mills have for the commission? — You put it in such a way as to imply that because they did not supply the particular quota each month, they could not supply it. It might have been by arrangement amongst themselves. One might say, "You have wheat nearer the boat than we have this month, so stick it on board." It might have suited the Scheme to adopt such a method as that. If we got a rush boat in we would not necessarily delay the boat until such and such a mill, some distance away, was able to send its quota in. We would say, "We have to get this boat away; we do not care what mill puts it on board, we want the flour. Fix up amongst yourselves about the quotas." That was the argument the millers used when discussing the matter with the Minister. They stated that some of them, to oblige other millers and to assist the Scheme, did not put the whole of their quotas on board, and they thought that it was a fair thing that they should get the benefit by the 2½ per cent. commission allowance which the other millers got in the price that they received for their flour.

7376. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You speak of a monthly quota: was that an amount per month from the millers? — Mr. Sibbald told them that the Australian Wheat Board had said that we were likely to get a boat a month, and that therefore they could fix up their quotas. As a matter of fact we did not get a boat a month.

7377. The Act does not say anything about a monthly quota; it simply says the millers' quota. What I want to know is whether there was a quota per month or some specific amount for a specific order? — The quota is the particular portion allotted to a mill for the whole of the Imperial order then contracted for. There was a specific contract that this State had to supply to the Imperial authorities within a certain period, and that was divided amongst the millers according to their own private arrangement.

7378. By the CHAIRMAN: You referred to Mr. Sibbald in regard to the agreement with Thomas. I notice that Mr. Sibbald's appointment to the Scheme was a month later than the agreement entered into with Thomas? — I was speaking from memory. I thought it was months after Mr. Sibbald's appointment that Thomas's agreement entered into with the South Australian Government was given to Mr. Sibbald.

(The witness retired.)

The Commission adjourned.

THURSDAY, 3rd OCTOBER, 1918. (At Perth.)

Present:

Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A., Chairman. Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C. | T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

MATTHEW BOWDEN, Retired Miller, sworn and examined:

7379. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you have some information for the Commission? — Yes. I have been very much hampered by the Scheme. The little mill at Brookton was established for gristing for any farmer who might want it done, and not for trading purposes. That was before the initiation of the Scheme, back in August, 1915. We were then working under the Foodstuffs Board, which did not interfere much with our work. However, since January of 1917 the mill has been badly hampered by the Scheme. I waited on Mr. Keys in January, 1918, to see whether I could grist for the Government, that is to say, whether the Government terms would leave me any profit. I found that on their terms, namely, 7d. per bushel, I would lose on every ton. I explained that I could not entertain the terms, that it was costing too much for oil for the engine. I decided to go along as before, gristing for the farmers, for which I was getting 1s. per bushel. But I found that the gristing was not coming in, especially in regard to the Corrigin line. Then I was told by some of the farmers out there that they could not get their wheat sent in to the mill, that they had been told there was to be no gristing done at all except through the Scheme, that a farmer could not send his own wheat to the miller to be ground on his own account, but that it was all to be put into stack, and that the farmer would then be given an order on the mill at York or at Pingelly, which meant 50 miles of additional trucking. I wrote to the Westralian Farmers, and in reply they said that evidently I did not understand the gristing arrangements. Shortly afterwards I learnt from the Railways, which had not told me anything before, that they were prohibited by the Scheme from lifting any wheat at all for the Brookton mill. By what right did the Scheme interfere between the farmer and the mill, or the farmer and railways, and say that the railways must not carry his 100 bushels of wheat, which the law entitles him to have ground. At any rate, that is the position. When I learned of it I came down and saw Mr. Keys, but he could not do anything. I followed him up for three days until he got into touch with Mr. Baxter. Finally I was told that if I sent in a list of all the customers I had on the Corrigin line an order would issue enabling each of those customers to send in ten bags of wheat. I asked Mr. Keys why there were prohibiting the farmers from sending the wheat in by train, and he said, "We want all the available trucks for the Scheme wheat." I told him that evidently he did not understand what he was dealing with, that we did not get wheat by truck loads, but only in little lots of from six to ten bags. The biggest lot I ever had was 32 bags, and the next biggest was 16 bags. Our little lots are always brought in in the van, and not in a truck at all. You will see by these figures how the mill has been interfered with by the Scheme. In 1917 we received from along the Corrigin line 721 bushels, and during the first six months of 1918 we received only 102 bushels.

7380. It is really closing up your mill? — Practically, yes. All that we now we have to work upon is the wagon wheat.

7381. That is, wheat brought in by wagon? — Yes, anything delivered by wagon. In this way during 1917 we had 5,950 bushels, and for the first six months of