THURSDAY, 28th NOVEMBER, 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. S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A.

Hon. JAMES MITCHELL, further examined: 8559. By the CHAIRMAN : The Commission has perused certain correspondence, dated 29th August, 1916, sent by the Acting Agent General, Mr M. L. Moss, from Messrs. Spencer & Co., Ltd., and Henry Simon, Ltd., of England, protesting against the contemplated action of the Government to engage an American firm for work of building silos and elevators. In the correspondence these firms point out that they are at present engaged in very important war work, but consider that they should be given an opportunity of tendering for the work. you will notice from the file that these papers were minuted by Mr Lefroy, who was then acting as deputy Premier, to the Minister for Agriculture. Did you ever see the correspondence before?—No, I have no recollection of it.

8560. You will notice that no reply has been sent?—The correspondence was sent in error to the Minister for Agriculture, and I suppose that is the reason it never came before me. As Minister controlling the Wheat Scheme I should have handled it.

8561. You will notice that the matter was minuted to the Commissioner for the Wheat Belt?—Yes. I note that Mr Sutton dealt with it.

8562. Were you ever aware that Mr Milne, British Trade Commissioner, also wrote complaining of the action of the Government in handing this work over to an American firm to the detriment of the British manufacturer?—I have no recollection of any papers on the question. If they had come before me I should have dealt with them.

8563. You having occupied the position of Minister for some considerable time, should not communications of this nature be brought before the Minister?—Certainly, they are intended for the Minister. (The witness retired.)

TUESDAY, 3rd DECEMBER, 1918. (At Perth.)

Present: Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A., Chairman. Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C. S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

GEORGE LOWE SUTTON, Commissioner for the Wheat Belt, further examined:

8564. WITNESS : Regarding the telegram to which reference was made in a question which you asked me, Mr Chairman, I wish to assure you that neither disrespect or discourtesy was intended in the action taken by myself, I regarded the instructions which had been given me by my Minister, Mr Johnson, before he left as being definite and specific, which did not require reference to anyone before being carried out. If we could ascertain the time at which that telegram was sent, I believe it would be found to have been sent somewhere about five o'clock on the day the information was obtained. That fact would illustrate my anxiety to deal as rapidly as possible with instructions which had been left me.

8565. By the CHAIRMAN: All I can say is that I thought it very strange the telegram should be sent away without it being referred to me as Minister acting for Mr Johnson during his absence from the State?—With regards to the supposed suppression of information in the case of the report on silos, I have had an opportunity of looking out the reports which I sent to you, and I find that the one which relates to the information obtained from Mr Basil Murray has the later date, viz., that of the next day on which the original report setting out additional cost of jarrah silos was sent to the Hon, Minister. I think this indicates that if I had been desirous of not submitting all the facts, however, they might bear upon my own opinion, to the Minister, I would not have sent forward so promptly this information, which was rather against the information submitted on the previous day.

8566. By Mr BROWN : What do you think is the smallest quantity of wheat for which it would be profitable to have bulk handling?—I cannot answer that definitely off hand. the matter depends to some extent upon the conditions in the country. If the mills were equipped and prepared to receive the bulk wheat, then in my opinion there would be no minimum required. If we were exporting, then I believe the minimum required would be at least a ship load. But that, of course, is an answer given offhand, and subject to further correction.

8567. You have examined into the bulk handling scheme pretty closely?—yes; I have given it a great deal of consideration. The reason why I am not able to answer your previous question more definitely is that I believe this State has passed some distance beyond the minimum necessary for the introduction of bulk handling.

8568. You think five million bushels for export would be sufficient to make bulk handling profitable?—The position is that if the mills and the ships are prepared to take bulk wheat, there is, so far as I see, no necessity for bags.

8569. But in the past the ships have been prepared to take only two-thirds in bulk?—I am not sure about the two-thirds. It may be four-fifths. But under present conditions of insurance the captain has the right to demand that a certain proportion of the cargo—I am not prepared to say from memory what that proportion is—shall be in bags.

8570. From your information you think that wheat growing could, under a system of bulk handling, be carried on without any bags at all?—I do not see any reason why that could not be done.

8571. You think bulk handling would be more profitable than the bag system?—I believe it would be the cheaper method of handling.

8572. Have you given any consideration to the material for building the silos—Western Australian timber, or brick, or concrete, or steel?—I have given the matter consideration, but I am not in a position to give an expert opinion upon the respective merits of those materials. I did believe from my experience, from what I