f.a.q. wheat or not?— No. I was perfectly clear on that point. I was informed it was f.a.q. wheat. 135. But you had no means of ascertaining whether it had been sold at 4s. 6d.?— The source I received the information from was absolutely reliable. 136. But you said you had no means of ascertaining personally?— Not personally. 137. It would assist the Commission if you could tell us what miller this is?— Padbury. 138. You said that you thought it unwise to appoint a person as manager who was in the employ of a firm who were very strongly resisting claims in regard to damage by mice. You will note that an amount of £30,000 is set down to meet damage by mice. That would be over and above the increase in weight of two pounds in the bag. Has there been a great deal of damage by mice in this State? —Yes. But we did not admit that there had been a plague of mice. Under the agreement the agents were immune if there was a mouse plague; but there was not one. The shippers took no steps whatever to protect the farmer's wheat against mice. Suppose there were two stacks in close proximity, and that one of the stacks was removed. There might be thousands of mice running out of the stack, but the agents, instead of putting sheets of iron round and doing something to kill those mice, let them run into the next stack. If the wheat had been their own, they would not have permitted that. I strenuously resisted this claim. They would not have paid this £30,000 it is something criminal. 139. By Mr. HARRISON: Do you think that is the item (indicating)? — The claim was more than that. I do not know what the amount for floods was; to put the floods in with the mice was clever. 140. By the CHAIRMAN: When you consider the large increase (Mr. Keys pointed out 400 tons. It is on one of the files), and this was only a portion. The £30,000 added to that for damage shows that the amount would be large?— Yes, it was. 141. In regard to bulk handling— I see the Committee dealt with this — you pointed out that last year there was an estimate of 10 million bushels, which means two million pounds to the state, and you also pointed out the saving was approximately 8d. -the cost of saving on the bags is 4d.? — Eight pence was the total cost. 142. The cost of saving on the sack was 4d. Would that not only apply to approximately one-third of the crop? — You mean if only one-third was put into bulk storage? 143. Yes? — I pressed for the whole of it to be put in. 144. Yours was a cheaper method of construction? — Yes, timber. 145. In your opinion, from what you have read on bulk handling, there could be proper storage provided in silos out of the timbers of the country instead of going in for concrete? — Yes. The only disadvantage is the insurance. timber silos can be made weevil proof as well as weather proof. It is something new here and we fear the insurance rate would be high. 146. Do you think there would be any difficulty in regard to shipping, being such a long distance? — In getting the tonnage? 147. No, I am dealing with bulk handling? — No, they use some stiffening with timber. 148. By Mr BROWN: Did all the millers in the early part oppose the Scheme, or was it only Ockerby? — All appeared to be in opposition. 149. How long after Mr Mitchell took Charge was Sibbald appointed? — I could not say from memory. 150. Between the time of Mr Johnson going away and Mr Mitchell coming in, the Committee carried on the functions? — Yes. 151. In regard to the credit given to the millers, was any credit given before Mr Sibbald's time? — No, but they were getting behind and we were pressing them. On one occasion this particular miller, of whom we have been speaking — it was decided that he should pay by a certain date. The next time came the amount had not been paid. The question was asked, "Did that miller pay his account?" The answer was "No." "Why.?" and the reason was given. "he must pay; he must be served with a writ," and it was determined that the Crown Solicitor should be seen. The document was take to Minister to be signed and he would not sign it. How can work be done with such things going on? 152. It was blocked by the Minister? — Yes. 153. You spoke about second-hand bags and the Minister said they could be used. Were no new bags available at the time? - Yes they were available. That was the time that Mr. Connolly was acting for the Minister and he acted on instructions from the Minister in Melbourne. 154. You spoke of machinery for re-conditioning? — Not machinery but re-conditioning. 155. Did the Committee consider this? — It was purely off his (Mr Sibbald's) own bat. 156. And the Committee after getting the machinery let it stay there? — I did not know. 157. We saw it there and it had never been used? — I know it was a farce. 158. You spoke of the insurance on wooden silos. Could not the trouble be overcome by having a couple of men during the hot weather to see that the timber did not catch fire? — We never considered that. 159. Instead of paying premiums it only means a question of labour? — Yes, that might be done. 160. By Mr HARRISON: After listening to your evidence and going through the files it seemed that the millers were the biggest defaulters. The amounts had accumulated to £55,000?— I think they owed up to £80,000 at one time. 161. You were losing that capital for the Scheme, yet the Scheme all the time was paying interest? — Yes, that is what hurts. 162. It goes to show the millers were being financed through the Scheme at the expense of farmers?— Yes. 163. Do you think that any storage which is put in at that present time should be ultimately for bulk handling; I mean whatever is done now. Should it be, no matter where the storage is erected, whether at the port or at the country districts, for an ultimate bulk handling Scheme? — That is what we advised. 164. You would not get the saving in jutes until you got the complete system? — I was prepared to go further. I wanted them to go in for a 10 million bushel capacity last year. 165. You would go for the complete Scheme? — Yes. 166. Do you think it would be preferable for the government to make representations to the Commonwealth for the full financing of the Scheme so as to dispense with jutes and double handling? — It would be a fine business proposition. You could dock the certificates. 167. With your experience of working the Scheme and knowing all about handling, you think you would get the maximum result with the further outlay of capital, even more than you would by working piece-meal? — Yes. 168. There is an item in the minutes, No. 108, which I do not understand. It refers to dead rail frights. What does this mean? — I have not come across that. 169. In the handling of this coming season's harvest, what do you think are the main points in connection with which money could be saved? — I do not know what system they were going on, whether it is bulk storage or not. 170. It would appear to me, being a farmer in the country districts, that we have lost considerably through not getting the early harvests away. You were not to deliver until early in January and there was a delay in the previous harvest which threw the delivery back to the rainy season. Do you think we should have solid floors instead of letting the grain gravitate through? — I recommended the engineer, Mr Pearse. to raise those sheds three feet. I would do the same right through the country. I would have solid floors. In connection with next year's harvest I was hoping that something would be done in the way of silos. 171. It is against the Scheme that the local agent can sell locally any damaged wheat from the bottom of his stacks? — I would not agree to that because he might do anything. 172. Is not the same agent empowered to get the whole of the asset? — Not under the present system. He has to send in a return of the same weight he has received plus the natural increase.