173. You think it is a premium on dishonesty? — I would not do it. 174. Could you overcome that by advertising that a sale would take place on a certain date? — Yes. 175. We have an asset at a country siding and I thought you would be agreeable to the agent who received it selling it and getting the best he could for it? — I would not run any risk in that respect. We found that kind of thing was abused. We heard of wheat being carted away from stacks and when you have had experience of that you always want to be careful. 176. You have not allowed any of these transactions in the country districts for fear of the abuse and also leading to a much bigger loss? — If sanction has been given, it has been done without the knowledge of the Committee. I never favoured it. 177. By the CHAIRMAN: Were you a member of the Board at the time of the last harvest? — Yes. 178. Did you decide to adopt the Zone system? — No. The manager was keen on it, but there was no definite decision by the Committee. 179. Were you consulted as a Committee as to whether it was advisable or not hand over the whole of the harvest to one firm? — No. I was off when the matter was finalised. 180. With your experience, what is your opinion in regard to farmers' co-operative society, if formed, taking full control of the Scheme? — When I saw the appointment which had been made, I regarded it with some concern. I thought the scheme would be too big for the company to handle. It was estimated at 10,000,000 bushels at the time, but they seem to have managed what they have received with a fair amount of success. I would not have recommended that one firm only be appointed. 181. There has been a good deal of criticism by the farming community, and their objection principally has been on account of the fact that they have no say in the management of the Scheme. Do you think it is possible for the farmers themselves to take this work of handling their own grain and carrying it out satisfactorily? — I do. 182. And finance it? — Yes, with assistance from the Federal Government. 183. It would be their own property they were handling? — Of course. 184. By Hon. R.G. ARDAGH: Do you think the farmers would get a better result? — I do. 185. By the CHAIRMAN: It would be preferable for the farmers to handle their own harvest? — I think so. 186. In reply to Mr. Harrison you stated there would be a saving if bulk handling was adopted, by sending tied bags to the port. Under present conditions, do you think the saving would be much? — The bags would be quickly emptied and returned to the farmer. 187. Would not those bags be destroyed? — I thought you said with bulk storage. If you had a silo there, you would open the mouth of the bag and empty the contents into the silo. If the wheat is to be stacked, there would be no saving. 188. You admitted that two- thirds would have to be stacked to-day? — If there was no silo to receive it you would be in a worse position. 189. Mr. Harrison was dealing with the proposed scheme which he said would only go about one third of the wheat, and you said there could be further saving by sending the wheat down in bags, which bags could be returned. That would be under normal conditions? — You would fill the silos with the wheat that came down in tied bags and the balance would be in sewn bags. 190. Thereby two-thirds of the harvest would still be in the same condition as before? — Yes. 191. By Hon. R.G. ARDAGH: You said the storage charges at Fremantle were higher than in the Eastern State; what was the reply to your protest? — They would not reduce it. There is another point I wish to refer to. I would like to show that Parliament has been hoodwinked; that information which is not true has been given to Parliament. On page 2164 of " Hansard " of 1917, the Minister for Industries in reply to Mr Cunningham, stated that 4,627 bushels of low grade wheat was sent from Geraldton to Northam mill to be (a) gristed for 6d . per bushel, plus any excess over 3s per flour ton for new bags, with 2½ per cent. commission on sale ( including del credere risk) of mill products; or at the option of the Scheme; (b) purchased by the mill at a price of 4s per bushel delivered at the mill. That is the answer which I myself got from Mr. Sibbald, who said that the wheat had to be gristed for the Scheme at 6d. or if the Scheme wished, the mill had to take it at 4s . When I got that answer I was satisfied that the farmers' interests were being safeguarded. I was sure they could not get less than 4s in view of that reply. However, when it was finalised, I found that the result was about half-a- crown, and on bringing up the matter in the Committee, I got it carried that the mill had to be invoiced for the 4s For months I kept the manager up to this at every meeting. I asked how the Geraldton wheat was going on, because I thought there was something fishy about it. When we got the final result I was wrath to find that not only we, the members of the Committee, had been hoodwinked, but Parliament also. Mr. Maley referred to this in the Legislative Assembly on 7th March, 1918, and in the course of his remarks he quoted the Honorary Minister, who in a minute to the general manager of the Scheme had said that there was nothing on the file to support the recommendation that the Northam mill should be called upon to pay 4s per bushel. It seems extraordinary that even the Minister had been misled. Parliament was given the same information as had been given to me, and then later Parliament has to be told that the earlier information was not correct. I was surprised at the matter not being taken up in Parliament, surprised that members should have been ready to swallow what the Minister said. 192. By Mr. BROWN: In regard to the covering of railway trucks, did the Committee ever approach the Railway Department for larger sheets? — Yes. 193. What was the general reply? — They said they would do it as far as possible. However, they just let it go on. 194. Are not most of the truck covers too short? — Yes, they are short; chaff especially gets wet. 195. By the CHAIRMAN: On page 144 of the minutes of the Wheat Marketing Committee, 18th January, 1917, I find this: " The Committee endorses the action of the general manager in consigning a parcel of 2,000 bags of inferior wheat from mill at Geraldton to the Northam mill for gristing at 6d. per bushel, or sale at option of Scheme at 4s. per bushel at mill. " From this it seems that you are quite right in your contention? — That certainly confirms what I say, yet the Minister said there was nothing on the file to support the recommendation. (The witness retired.) The Commission adjourned.