comes to be removed?— Given the same time, most assuredly.

230. Yet you do not think it was a good scheme for saving wheat?— Why not?

231. You have said that permanent sheds, silos, or bins should be placed at the various country sidings?— I said, in my opinion, they should be placed at the bigger country stations. Now that we have a supply of wheat nearer to the port it would be better to stack under the old system at country sidings, under proper conditions, of course, if we cannot provide silos.

232. You realise that the present mode of handling is a wasteful one?— Only to some extent.

233. What did you do to alter the conditions when you were Minister?— What could I do?

234. Did you try to get any money to build silos; did you introduce legislation?— What you mean to ask is whether I endeavoured to have bulk handling carried into effect. So far as the sheds were concerned, that was the idea, but we had not sufficient money to go in for bulk handling at that time. When I was in Melbourne in December, 1917, we sold the wheat to the British Government, and it was stipulated that we should be prepared to put it on the boat in six months.

235. Was there anything finalised during your administration?— You know full well that there is nothing finalised to-day. It was only during the last days of my administration that the Federal Government offered, roughly, £300,000 for the purpose of putting up silos. What I did was to write to Mr. Wilson and point out the urgency of the matter, and I suggested that Mr. Sibbald be sent over to the East to deal with the authorities over there. Mr. Sibbald came back after I had left office.

236. Was it a fact that Mr. Sutton, prior to this, had been working strenuously to get the State to undertake bulk handling?— It is quite possible.

237. Was he not removed and Mr. Sibbald put in his position?— Cabinet decided that Mr. Sutton should return to do the work for which he was paid £750 per annum. It would not be right to say that he was removed and Mr.Sibbald put in his place.

238. Do you think it would be an advantage to have a complete system of bulk handling?— I am not a bulk handling expert, but I do think at this stage it would be well to erect country silos as part of the bulk handling scheme. With the limited money at our disposal, I would not favour doing such a thing as, say, erecting an elevator at Fremantle just now.

239. If we went in for a further expenditure for the purpose of saving the cost of bags and handling would it not be better to spend a large amount while we are about it than to carry out the Scheme piecemeal?— The cost would be so great that the farmers would be saddled with a desperate load by way of interest for all time. Moreover, the farmers would not save the total cost of bags or anything like it , but they will have a convenience which will be of advantage to them, in addition to some saving, of course, as well as a guarantee that the wheat will be properly protected.

240. You have made a remark about acquiring agents having to make good any loss? — That is provided for in the agreement.

241. Is there a case in which a firm has had to pay?— You must ask Mr. Baxter that question. I have told you that the 1915-16 wheat was not cleaned up before I left office and the aggregate out-turn is the out-turn which determines.

242. Whatever waste has taken place at country sidings it has been more than made up by increased weight through climate conditions?— Yes; the increased weight is the farmer's property, and the waste is the responsibility of the acquiring agents.

243. Is there any way of getting at a man when you know there is waste at a particular center?— I think there would be, because the individual stacks would show. A stack at Dalwallinu gave a considerable increase in weight. There would be some method of determining.

244. By the CHAIRMAN: Would it not depend on the terms of the agreement?— Yes, and on the season of the year at which the wheat was shipped. My point is that avoidable waste due to neglect on the part of the acquiring agents should be made good.

245. By Mr. HARRISON : There is nothing in the agreement to provide for that?— I think there is. I think the agent is responsible for the weight he receives plus the natural increase.

246. By the CHAIRMAN: Let me get back to the question of whether it was not your intention to appoint Mr.Sibbald a member of the Board. Let me read this telegram which was sent to you in Melbourne: "Council's Select Committee recommend that the Wheat Marketing Committee shall consist of five members including one with knowledge of milling industry. After discussion with Sutton propose that with your concurrence invite Sibbald act as fifth member similar terms as Hammond." Do you remember getting that?— I cannot remember.

247. Did you reply?— If I did my reply will be on the file. I did not have it on mind to appoint Mr.Sibbald other than as manager.

248. I find this written in pencil underneath the telegram: "I agree Sibbald confidential he may be asked to manage scheme." That is not in your hand writing?— I had it in mind all the time that he should be employed as manager. He was employed by Thomas & Co, and when I got to Adelaide I asked Thomas if he would object to Sibbald's appointment. He said he did not want to lose Sibbald, but if it was in the interests of Western Australia, he would offer no objection.

249. Your idea was that the appointment of Sibbald would mean a big saving to the farmers and to the State?— Certainly; with proper management it would mean that. I thought Mr. Sibbald quite capable and so I appointed him.

250. Did you have any complaints to the effect that the neglect shown by the agents in their stacks was greater after Mr. Sibbald's appointment than previously?— Certainly not. Such a complaint, if made, would not have been true.

251. You have said that you never had any unfriendly feelings towards the board?— Certainly not.

252. You believed that they did good work but you disagreed with the policy of the Minister and the Board sitting together?— Yes.

253. Was there ever any delay between the receipt by you of the Board's recommendations and your reply to those recommendations?— I do not remember any case in which a reply had to be sent. Their advice was acted upon.

254. Did you ever act without the Board's advice?— It is quite possible. The Minister is responsible for the management of the Scheme.

255. Acting on the advice of the Board?— Not in all matters of detail. Certainly I acted whenever I felt it was necessary.

256. According to the minutes you made several complaints against the past management of the Board. In the first place you said they were not rigid enough in regard to accounts. To what accounts were you referring?— It is utterly impossible for me to remember.

257. You referred to the staff. You said you did not complain of the Board, but of the staff, for not getting out the certificates. Did that occasion much delay?— I cannot say now. If I complained, there was occasion to do so. I fancy it was in connection with the printing of the certificates.

258. Were the millers in your time allowed their equity on the 1915-16 wheat? — Certainly not. It was of course considered against anything they owed.

259. Were the millers allowed the equity which was due on the wheat they had put into the pool? No, they have not been paid yet as far as I know.

260. Mr. Hammond said they were paid nearly two years ago?— Well, you will get that from the accounts. It was certainly not done with my authority. This is probably what happened. Before my time they drew the usual allowance against that wheat. The final payments were certainly not made in my time.

261. Do you know of any business transacted by the Board which did not appear in the minutes?— No.

262. You did not do anything to prevent a full record being made in the minutes?— Certainly not. Mr.Hammond said that these minutes were written up while they waited. Before my time the minutes were taken on loose sheets of paper. I insisted upon a proper minute book.