263. The Board decided that old bags were not to be used. Did you alter that?— It was the Wheat Scheme in Melbourne, and not the Board here, which decided that old bags were not to be taken. When in Melbourne I discovered that good second-hand bags were permitted in the Eastern States, and I telegraphed accordingly. Clearly, if the use of good second-hand bags was permitted in the Eastern States, there was no reason why they should not be used here.

264. Is there any danger from weevil?—Yes, always.

265. Any action you took was in accordance with the decision of conference?—No, when I found that the farmers in the East were allowed to use second-hand bags I wired over here to say that our farmers should have the same privilege.

266. The Australian Wheat Board decided against it?—That was their first decision, but they varied that later, as I found in December, 1916.

267. You said you did not know anything about the difficulty with the accounts, and that Mr. Grogan was a good man. You shifted Mr. Grogan, did you not?— He was acting accountant at the Agricultural Department, and he had to go back to his work at the Agricultural Bank. He was promoted from the Department to the Bank.

268. And transferred there by the Public Service Commissioner?—Yes, in the ordinary way.

269. It meant an advance to him?—Yes, he was appointed manager of the Bank.

270. I thought Mr. Berkeley was accountant at the Agricultural Department?— I think he was transferred temporarily to some other department. However it is a small matter.

271. He was acting Under Secretary. It is not a small matter, because Mr. Hammond told us that the transference of inexperienced officers might result in much loss to the Scheme?—That was an unfair statement to make. Mr. Barkeley is a very capable accountant, and I am quite sure that Mr. Grogan Is sufficiently interested in the country to give Mr. Berkeley every possible assistance.

272. Mr. Grogan was a very satisfactory officer?—Yes, I should think so. I think the accounts will be found to be in very good order.

273. I suppose you saw in the Press that the farmers claimed that they had the right to take full control of the Scheme?—I have known it to be mentioned from time to time.

274. Do you think the farmers could do it by co-operation?— I suppose they could do it , but I doubt if the farmers would agree that the responsibility which the Government now have towards them should be placed in the hands of any other body.

275. Could the farmers themselves take full control of the Scheme and run it financially and otherwise?—They could not do so.

276. Could they do it if backed by the Government?—Yes, if backed financially, but do you refer to all the farmers of the State?

277. Could they do it by co-operation?—It could be handled under a scheme of co-operation.

278. You cannot expect 40 or 50 farmers, without sixpence between them, to say that they will run the scheme?—You mean if all the farmers of the State joined in a big co-operative movement?

279. I mean all those connected with the Pool?—Yes. They could receive the wheat and stack it themselves.

280. Do you not think if a scheme like that was brought into existence that more care would be taken of the wheat?— I should not like to say so, because that would be a reflection on the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., who are handling the wheat to-day.

281. That is a limited company?—It is a co-operative company.

282. Would it be a possible to evolve a scheme whereby the farmers could handle their own wheat and take care of their own, instead of handling it over to private individuals as at present?—You do not mean that the farmers would hold the wheat on the farms, but deliver it to the Pool? That would be quite possible. What is happening to-day is that the farmers organisation, which I regard as co-operative, is the acquiring agent for the wheat. It is not stacking the wheat but has done so.

283. The organisation has no responsibility?—Apparently, none at all, beyond one farthing a bushel.

284. You have stated that there has been a good deal of loss through the carelessness of the agents, or through the agents not being kept to their agreement, the stacks not being properly covered and the wheat not being properly attended to. It is our duty to endeavour to avoid that in future, and we want to arrive at a basis for doing so. Would you prefer that the State should take full control in a matter of that description?—Yes, because the responsibility of the State to the farmers is different to the responsibility of the farmers to themselves in the matter of finance. Even in a gigantic co-operative movement, which would be an amalgamation of many small organisations from one end of the country to the other, the Government would still need to employ inspectors to see that the work was properly done in every centre, otherwise the general average would operate against certain people.

285. That would depend on the backing of the Government financially?—Without Government finance there is no need to consider the question, because it cannot be done.

286. I want to see that the wheat that is pooled is well cared for. Would it be better that it should be done by co-operation and that the farmers should look after their own wheat, or that it should be done by the Government on behalf of the farmers, instead of by private individuals who are causing loss?— Do you mean by a Government department?

287. Yes, if it were done by the Government?— Of the two I should think it would be better that the Government should handle the wheat. I do not think you could get one co-operative organisation to include all farmers. There is nothing wrong with the present method if it is properly managed; I refer to the method of having acquiring agents. It has to be remembered that up to this year the acquiring agents were not only responsible, but were substantial people who could face their responsibilities if there was a loss.

288. Their responsibility has been useless all the time? It has never been useless all the time?— It has never been enforced, because I suppose there has never been an opportunity.

289. Is it not a fact that, owing to the scarcity of shipping, the agreements which expired on certain fates could not be fulfilled on those dates, and that the agents got out of their liabilities?— No, they were paid something to continue their liabilities.

290. Only to a certain degree?— I do not know what has transpired recently in connection with the taking over of the stacks. I fancy the agents were paid to continue their liability, and in any case they are responsible for handing over the stacks in a proper condition.

291. We know it has not been done?— I do not know that.

292. Do you know anything about wheat which was sold at Geraldton and gristed at Northam?—That was in my time, and I think the records will show the details. So far as I can remember the Geraldton mill offered a small price, but in the opinion of the manager it was deemed to be better to send the wheat to Northam to be sold or gristed there.

293. Was not the price quoted 4s. a bushel?— I do not think so. As a matter of fact the mill did not, I think, take it. They gristed it on account of the Scheme.

294. The minutes say that it was 4s. a bushel or 6d. gristed with an option at 4s.?— I believe they did not exercise the option. The scheme would get all that it was entitled to if it was gristed at 6d. and the proceeds handed over. It was Mr. Sibbald's opinion that it was better for the Scheme to send it down and have it gristed than to send it to the mill at the price that was offered, which I think was 2s. 4d.

295. According to the records, the general manager was consigning a parcel of 2,000 bags of inferior wheat from the Geraldton mill to the Northam mill. The manager must have had knowledge that the wheat was worth 4s. a bushel?— I do not know that he ever inspected it. I understand it was wheat that was rejected at Geraldton.

296. It was inferior wheat?— Yes.

297. What is the system regarding to the pools in general?—Does our State Pool stand on its own, or is there one general Pool in regard to the division of cost and revenue, to be pooled together for division amongst the persons who put wheat into the pool?— It is a federation of the Pools. Our State is responsible for