the scheme. We could not have the accounts in one place and the manager in another. If the question is inquired into it will be found that the accounts were well kept. The scheme was started hurriedly in 1915, and there was no accountant in the State who had had past experience of work of this kind, but the officials were capable, and I believe the accounts are in really good order. As to taking the premises, you cannot carry on a big business without adequate accommodation. There must be accommodation to house the officials and keep the records. I do not know whether at this stage there is anything more that I wish to say to the Commission.

197. I notice you stated that you continued the policy of your predecessor, but that you did not think it advisable for the Minister to attend the meetings of the advisory committee?—That is so.

198. You did not treat the committee as an executive body?—The Act says they are an advisory committee.

199. My reason for asking you that is this: your predecessor said that while the Act stated that the committee was an advisory body, the actions of the committee and the treatment meted out to them were of an executive character. All the deliberations which took place between the Minister and themselves were given effect to immediately?—In no case did I set aside their advice. I do not think the advisory committee at that day were glad to take the responsibility.

200. Then you maintain the actions of the committee previously were not executive?—I do not know, Mr. Hammond says they were not executive.

201. You also stated that you found the scheme could not be run without a manager. What was the additional work that necessitated the appointment of a manager?—The additional work was the growing bulk of wheat and the growing troubles, and a manager was needed because the work was not, in my opinion, satisfactorily done before.

202. But you stated that the agents had shown interest in their work, and did their work well?—Some of the agents, yes. I said that some of the stacks were not properly cared for. The scheme involved a multiplicity of details. We had to consult with the Federal people. We had to induce the Federal Government to turn the ships in here, and if ships broke down and had to come into Fremantle for repair, we had to get the Federal Government to allow us to go on with the work of loading while the repairs were going on. It is troublous work, and there would be loss occasioned if the management was not in the hands of an experienced man. It might be very great.

203. You inferred that the scheme during 1915-16 was carried on in a slipshod manner, and your reason was that on the first agreement there was a loss to the State of £40,000?—I do not think I said slipshod manner.

204. Those are the words you used?—I said the stacking of the wheat was not satisfactory.

205. You referred to stacks in many cases being faulty for want of inspectors, and not being cared for?—Yes.

206. Inspectors were appointed in 1914-15?—One inspector—Mr. Paton.

207. You went on to say that the stack at Quairading was not covered?—Mr. Hammond said so.

208. That was during the time there was a manager?—I do not know when it was. The people who undertook to cover the stack are responsible and will have to pay for it.

209. You pointed out the agents were not responsible for the damage by mice, or a mice plague?—A mice plague?

210. In regard to the erection of country silos or silos at country stations?—That mice plague business I should have made clear. They have to establish the fact that there was a plague of mice at the spot the damage was done. There is a difference between a mice plague and a few mice.

211. In regard to the erection of silos at country stations, did you mean that silos should be erected to hold the whole of the wheat?—If there is to be any delay in shipping, as I said before, even at the cost of 1s. 6d. a bushel it is better to erect silos than to have the wheat stacked at present.

212. It would pay better?—I think so. The silos would not be useless afterwards.

213. You pointed out that you had some pamphlets here. I gather from that you have looked in the question closely. Do you think that local material in the shape of timber could be used for the purpose?—I have no knowledge of the work.

214. I am only basing that on what you said?—I have not read widely enough to express an opinion on the subject. We know that wood bins are used in a special way, but I have not sufficient knowledge to say whether you could put 50,000-bushel silos up with wood or brick.

215. Coming back to the appointment of manager, I notice that Mr. Sibbald was asked in the first place to go on as a member of the advisory board only?—When was that?

216. The CHAIRMAN: That would be in file 41/4116.

217. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Referring to the question of mice, who was to decide whether it was a plague or a few mice?—The people claimed against, the acquiring agents. They would have to establish it. It is not a difficult matter.

218. By Mr. HARRISON: Who would adjudicate and say whether it was a plague or a few; the Minister or the manager?—I think Mr. Harrison knows that the manager is always subject to the Minister. The manager would collect the information and advise the Minister.

219. Was there ever any decision as to whether there was a plague of mice?—I do not think a case arose to warrant a decision being arrived at.

220. If any acquiring agent stated he wanted a certain rebate because of destruction of wheat by mice, you would not have granted it?—If an acquiring agent asked me whether I would instruct an inspector to look at a stack and determine whether it had been attacked by a plague of mice, I would have behaved reasonable.

221. Could you say whether there was a plague of mice?—I do not remember one, but if there had been, it would be on record.

222. You consider that the farmers are more vitally interested in this Scheme than anyone else?—Yes, and I consider their interests should be safeguarded to the full.

223. How was it then that the amounts owing by millers were outstanding so long?—If you are assuming that the farmers were at a disadvantage on that account, I say they were not.

224. Did the millers pay interest on these amounts, which had accumulated to the tune of £55,000?—I do not think they did, but it happened that were were short of bran and pollard and we were anxious to have wheat gristed. The Act was altered so that we might be secured so far as bran and pollard were concerned, as well as wheat. The millers owed this money and they should certainly have paid interest, but the wheat stacks bring in no interest and the loss to the farmer, whether the wheat was being gristed by the millers of whether it remained stacked, so long as he held the product of the wheat, was not any greater.

225. In all business matters, as soon as a product is handed over to a firm that firm either pay or are subject to interest?—The interests of the farmers were studied to the fullest extent.

226. You stated that you had to make certain arrangements for the further supply of bran and pollard. Were those arrangements made with only one firm?—All millers.

227. How was it then that one firm was allowed more grace with regard to money matters than any other?—I suppose you mean Ockerby & Co. Their account might have been overdrawn on one occasion to the extent of £15,000, but Mr. Ockerby's claim against the Scheme was a larger amount than that of any other miller. There was nothing unsafe about the position. It was a difficult matter to get money in. Millers claimed that the £40,000 was their due. There was no leniency towards Ockerby & Co.

228. Do you think that in connection with the 1916-17 harvest, after the experience of the 1915-16 harvest, there was an improvement made?—There was a tremendous improvement.

229. Do you think that harvest will be safer from loss, in comparison with the previous harvest, when it