8538. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: To what do you refer?—I wrote a letter on the 12th August. Whilst in Narrogin I saw a report in the "West Australian" to the effect that a letter received from the Agent General had been dealt with by myself instead of being sent on the Minister.

8539. By the CHAIRMAN : Here is a letter of protest sent to the acting Agent General on the 31st October, 1916, and another letter of the 20th August, 1916, from Spencer & Co., Ltd. (Letters read.)

8540. (Correspondence read from the Acting Agent General and from Messrs. Spencer & Co. & Messrs. Simon & Co.; also departmental minutes thereon.) In the report which you have put up here, you have quoted from the Spencer-Simon correspondence simply short extracts, omitting the important context, and thus you have claimed that your action is justified by that correspondence; whereas really it is not so justified?—What I claim is, that whatever was done was not done with any object of withholding information from the Minister. I quoted from that correspondence what I believed to be salient points of the letter so far as we were concerned, the points which would enable me to make a recommendation on the subject. Nobody, so far as I know, has ever disputed, and certainly I have never disputed, that Messrs. Simon and Messrs. Spencer are reliable and reputable firms capable of building elevators. But the point at issue was that in connection with the designing of this system the machinery to be used should be the best of its kind, irrespective of who was the maker of it, and that therefore it was desirable to have a firm to design the system who were not interested in the manufacture of any particular machine. That did not debar British firms, to whom—it is strange to have to say it, but it seems to be necessary to have to say it—we would give preference. That is the position. Messrs. Simon in their letter stated that they were prepared to construct all the machinery for the elevators. But that is the very course that we wished, if possible, to avoid.—giving the construction of the machinery to the designing firm. Messrs. Simon might make the best cleaning machine, but might not make the best weighing machine. We wanted the best cleaning machines if Simon's made them, and the best weighing machine that Spencer or anybody else made.

8541. By Hon J. F. ALLEN : What reason had you for considering that Metcalf & Co. were not the same class of people as the others; they were contractors as well as designers?—they were not makers of the machinery.

8542. How did you know?—From inquiries we made.

8543. From whom; from other people besides them?—Yes.

8544. They do supply machinery by contract?—Yes. We did not impugn the ability of the British manufacturers or designers.

8545. But did you not debar them from supplying?—No.

8546. You did not enable them to tender for the work?—I claim that we did.

8547. Metcalf & Co. or any other firm designed the equipment of the elevators on their own models and other firms would have to tender according to those plans. It would be like calling tenders for the manufacture of a watch by getting someone to supply the case and then calling for tenders to supply the works?—You have not understood our object. If you read through the files you will see that we had no intention of allowing Metcalf & Co. to give us what we did not want.

8548. By the CHAIRMAN: How could you prevent it?—We would have taken care that they did not prepare plans until we gave them instructions.

8549. But when the plans were prepared, how was anyone here to judge them? There was no one here capable of judging them?—We could have stated, for instance, whether we would have a Blackstone or an I. & C. engine to run the elevators.

8550. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : Would you decide that first?—The bulk handling Advisory Committee had determined that no instructions were to be given until they had been consulted.

8551. By the CHAIRMAN : But who was to decide?—The Engineer-in-Chief.

8552. But we have been told that he is not competent to say?—We should have specified that British machinery would have to be put in, and the Advisory Committee had decided that no designs were to be drawn until they had stated what was to be done.

8553. When the Advisory Committee sat, the was had not broken out?—The people who have been reporting from the beginning have also been reporting throughout the period of war. The Advisory Committee had nothing to do with Metcalf & Co., but the body who were called together afterwards consisted of members of the old committee, and they had in mind always the fact that they wished Metcalf & Co. to advise them. The committee, however, were going to say what was to be done in Western Australia. I still maintain that British machinery would have been supplied in these elevators.

8554. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : The letter the Chairman has read clearly indicates that the English firms could not see how it could be done. They said that the design would be so prepared that it would practically prohibit the British manufacturer from supplying?—They were in error in saying that. What was running through our minds at the time was that the machinery for the storage scheme could be made at the State Implement Works.

8555. By the CHAIRMAN: You state that you kept nothing from the Minister. There is a telegram on the file which was sent to Mr Johnson, who was then Minister, and who was in Melbourne. I was acting for Mr Johnson at the time and I knew nothing about that telegram. This is the telegram.— relative bulk handling conference consider State requirements must be decided by those with knowledge of local conditions, but decidedly advantageous for State to have expert advice re design of building and type of elevating machinery. As local requirements must control design best results obtain even in this connection as result co-operation State officers and expert. Believe Metcalf's very suitable firm advise on these matters as it is stated they not interested in any special type of construction of machines. Therefore are likely advocate best of each kind irrespective of owner's interest. Their representative undoubtedly expert in matters of design and machinery. Sutton, 12/8/15. then there is another telegram that you sent on the day after. That reads:— If States are taking uniform action consider Durham services would be best and most economically utilised by State officers conferring with him to secure standardised designs, buildings and machinery. To advise each State separately mainly duplication. No necessity Durham traverse country districts. Sutton. 13/8/15. Why were not those telegrams put before me before you sent them to Mr Johnson?—They were sent at the direct instruction of Mr Johnson. Before he left Mr Johnson left instructions for those of the bulk handling committee who were available to meet Durham and wire to Mr Johnson in Melbourne the result of the conference.

8556. Should not the matter have been submitted to me first, seeing that I was acting for Mr Johnson?—All that I can say is that I got direct instructions from Mr Johnson to communicate with him.

8557-8. And you regard me as a nonentity?—Not at all. (The witness retired.) The Commission adjourned.