8508. Are you aware that Mr Piesse went down there with a view of erecting a mill at Albany?—No.

8509. I mention that to show that he had no personal interests to consider. If he could have erected a mill at the port, he would have done it?—I believe Mr Piesse to be one of the most public-spirited men in the State. But to revert: it is to be noted that the advice tendered was qualified and that Albany was considered to be unsuitable only if the wheat was to be stored for any length of time. On a previous occasion I tried to point out the difficulties there would be in getting a proper view of this Scheme on account of the time that had elapsed. This instances one of the difficulties. At the initiation of the Wheat Scheme and at the time arrangements were made for storing the 1915-16 crop at Albany, those connected with the Scheme were told they have every reason to believe that the wheat would be shipped by the following September. As a fact, the return furnished by the secretary of the Scheme show that the last of it was shipped by the "Hamm" on 5th January, 1916. To complete the loading of this vessel 39,000 bags were brought from country sidings. I am also informed that it was all shipped in good order and condition without loss and without being damaged by weevil. There have been no complaints from overseas. In the same section, page VIII., it also stated, "This wheat is very badly damaged by weevil, and there is not much credit due tot he official who authorised the stacking of the wheat on these sites, as considerable loss to the Scheme will inevitably result by this act." the wheat referred to was of the 1916-17 crop, and its disposition was controlled by the general manager, not by me. But here again the Scheme was advised by the then Minister (Hon. Jas. Mitchell), who was in Melbourne, that arrangements had been made to lift our wheat by the following August. that is the position I wish to place before you.

8510. You were not connected with the Scheme when this wheat was sent there?—No. Also in connection with that, it was anticipated that the wheat would be lifted by August.

8511. That was previously given in evidence?—I cannot say. We received definite information from Melbourne to that effect at the time.

8512. that was the time when you were inquiring whether they could ship the quantity of wheat as requested?—Yes, from Fremantle. Another point: you referred to the insurance of silos. I am not able to quote the report which you dealt with, as my only copy of that report was voluntarily handed to your secretary in order that you might see what had been done. However, I would like to say this, that the report or whatever it was, was furnished and prepared upon the very best information available at the time and in consultation probably with the best specialist in Australia.

8513. By the CHAIRMAN : Who is that>—Mr Carter.

8514. the CHAIRMAN: That is your opinion. Put it that way, that is your opinion.

8515. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : A man interested in having an agreement for his system to be adopted?—I do not know that any system has been agreed upon.

8516. Do you think that Mr Carter had the knowledge?—he did not claim to have built jarrah silos.

8517. Then why report on them?—Because he had special experience with silo construction in America.

8518. Of jarrah?—No.

8519. Pine?—Yes, American timbers.

8520. BY the CHAIRMAN: That compares with jarrah?—It was discussed, and I want further to state that, prior to the consultation which preceded the report, Mr Hammond and I had been very enthusiastic advocates of jarrah silos.

8521. You said that in evidence?—I wish to emphasise it now. Only very reluctantly and after severe opposition, we admitted the superior claim of the concrete one. At that time it was stated by a very prominent insurance manager, who obtained an unofficial quotations (I understand from the Underwriters' Association) that as business of this kind was new, it was difficult to quote. Since then, the matter has been prominently before the public, and it is probably that some considerable thought has been given to it by insurance people and they may now feel disposed to quote definitely and with more confidence. nevertheless, the business is still new——

8522. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : What business?—The insurance of silos.

8523. With timber?—yes, and all kinds of silos.

8524. But silos have been constructed in Australia for 30 years with timber. You are speaking of Mr Carter as being an expert. I think you said the greatest expert?—I said probably the greatest.

8525. You said insurance on silos. It is well to be clear on these points as we go along?—I do not want it misunderstood that Mr Carter claims to be an expert on insurance.

8526. But there is your statement that he is an expert on insurance?—If I said so I do not claim that he is. I am not claiming that at all. The report was on the construction of silos, and with underwriters not familiar with the risk any quote is in the nature of an experiment, and therefore very subject to revision after the silos are built.

8527. By the CHAIRMAN : How can you say that?—the insurance only goes on from year to year.

8528. This is a matter of opinion only?—This is the opinion I am giving.

8529. This report is definite and I will read it to you so as to remind you (report read)?—Is that not signed?

8530. This is the report you gave us?—Yes, but is it not signed?

8531. It is a copy?—the position is this. It is a copy of a signed report.

8532. There is another estimate here?—What I am at a loss to understand is on what grounds you base it that it is not my opinion. If I remember, at the time you stated you had a difficulty in finding where this information was, and I offered then to let you have a copy of the report I had. That is why it is not signed and that is how the error in regard to the 50 millions has cropped in. It has not been corrected in the copy.

8533. This is another report (read)?—I should like to refer to Mr Burnett's evidence. In answer to Question 8251 he says that the contents of concrete silos would carry a higher rate that the structure itself. I have great difficulty in understanding this.

8534. It is his business?—yes, but it is new business. Mr Burnett also refers to the silos as grain stores. Attached to the silos is the handling house, which is very like a mill in its effect. Mills carry a higher rate of insurance than do grain stores. I believe this fact has been overlooked, and very much doubt if it was taken into consideration in the evidence given before the Commission.

8535. We have evidence from Mr Morrison that his insurance was not increased?—I think it will be found that he is paying the mill rate on the silo. there is not the same machinery attached tot it as in the case of a handling house in connection with a country silo dealing with bulk wheat. I am under the impression that the moving about of the wheat in the silos causes gas to be generated which becomes inflammable.

8536. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : Do you mean inflammable or explosive?—Both, I believe. If the gas exploded it would attack the wood. Concrete silos carry a very low rate of insurance. I would also like to point out that whilst jarrah is not generally regarded as being inflammable, Mr Carter instances the case in which a paling fence at Port Pirie was burnt down as a result of sparks from a railway engine. Some stress was laid on the question as to whether Government officials know that better rates were usually obtained by the Government than by private individuals. I was quite aware of this and used it as an argument to get the cheapest possible rates quoted, and stated there would be a big volume of business. I was also aware there would be no moral risk in connection with Government business, and that we usually did get lower rates. 8537. BY the CHAIRMAN: Mr Burnett impressed that upon us?—I am just stating that I did know this. I wrote a letter to the Commission. I am very much concerned to think that the Commission should feel that I suppressed information which the Minister should have submitted to him. I have no recollection of ever having done such a thing, which is contrary to the code that it is my custom to follow.