524. But the Australian Wheat Board carried it into effect?—No, each State controls its own working arrangements.

525. Well that is what they have done?—They have not interfered in our State.

526. The matter came up at several conferences?—They have no control beyond that in regard to shipping and overseas sales.

527. You know they were very wrath when you broke away from their recommendations?—Not when I explained the position to them. The Advisory Committee we wrath, but not the Australian Wheat Board.

528. The minutes I read are not those of the Advisory Committee but of the Australian Wheat Boards which meets in Melbourne. Mr. Gregory represented you at the conference?—There is probably something which has slipped my memory.

529. Do you remember sending a telegram to Mr. Gregory objecting?—No.

530. This is in regard to the handling of the Scheme?—I will have to refresh my memory.

531. You objected to the appointment of only one agent at each siding, and the argument became a little strong?—Yes.

532. It drew from the Commonwealth Minister the words, "We have done a lot for them, too"?—There is a different attitude there now.

533. Do you think, under the conditions which existed at the time the Pool was taken, in view of the fact that these agents had rendered every assistance possible in the pooling of the wheat, for Mr. Hughes has admitted that had it not been for them they would never have been successful, and in view of this assistance being rendered on the distinct understanding that their business would not be interfered with, that it is fair to make a breach of faith in that direction?—I do not regard it as a breach of faith. When Mr. Hughes gave his assurance that their business would not be interfered with he did not think the matter would go on for years, as everybody else did. With regard to what the agents have done for the Pool, I would say that they have not done anything for the money they have taken out of the Pool. They wanted 3½d. per bushel for handling the wheat without any responsibility: They were supposed to carry the responsibility according to the agreement, but the responsibility could not be forced on them. At a later date they said they could do it for about half the amount, which shows that they did very well out of the Pool. I tried to make an arrangement between the two bodies, but one body would not come in and operate and there was nothing left for me to do but to give it to the other body. I gave the other people their opportunity but they did not take it. Had all the agents been operating I would have been in a better position to control the Scheme. It is more difficult to control a Scheme operated by one body than if a number of bodies are concerned, for I could then play off one body against the other.

534. You do not think there was any breach of faith?—No, because they had their opportunity to come in. It was open to them to come in and operate at 2½d. After the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., had agreed to 2½d. under competition, I left it for the associated agents to come in and operate on the same terms.

535. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Under the competitive system?—Yes, and they refused. I could not go outside that. There was no other avenue open to me.

536. That was your principal reason for giving it to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.,?—Yes. The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., agreed to operate at 2½d under competition, or at 2⅛d. without competition. I told the agents this and asked if they would operate on those terms, but they declined to do so. The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., had agreed to come in at 2⅛d. without competition, and had the agents accepted the 2½d. it would have laid me open to the charge of spending more money than I should spend.

537. By the CHAIRMAN: There is an extract on the file dealing with the appointment of agents dated the 2nd November, 1917. The full report of the deputation dealing with the four shipping agents is not here. The extract is as follows :— At the conclusion of the conference Mr. Baxter stated that he had given the four shipping agents an opportunity to come in on a competition basis and was very disappointed that this offer has been turned down. There was, however, still an offer open for their consideration, as to which he awaited their reply. Mr. Keys then stated that he understood if the other agents withdrew from the business now it would mean that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., would have a monopoly, but he took it that in that case it was not proposed to pay that company the price agreed to be given under competition. Mr. Braxter replied in the negative. Mr. Keys said that in that case he presumed the business would be given to the agent who could quote the cheapest rate, since the first consideration was to obtain the best possible terms for the Scheme. Mr. Braxter replied that, as already stated, his first aim was to get the best possible terms he could on behalf of the Scheme. Mr. Keys then rose to conclude the meeting, stating that the offer contained in the letter received from Mr. Baxter would be again considered and a reply handed to the Minister during the day. The shippers then met and in the afternoon sent you another offer considerably lower than the previous offer. You stated then in no uncertain terms that if they offered to do the work for nothing you would not recommend Cabinet to accept their offer?—That is so.

538. Why did you tell them the day before that your first aim was to get the best possible treatment on behalf of the Scheme?—That was so. I had already accepted the Westralian Farmers' offer.

539. By Hon, J. F. ALLEN: Did you tell them so?—No.

540. By the CHAIRMAN : There must be a report of the deputation which took place?—I do not know that there was anything beyond that. There certainly was a wordy warfare for a time.

541. I said, "At the conclusion of the conference, Mr. Baxter said"?—I do not think there is much beyond that to report. I will, however, ask the secretary for the information. When they came in I had already written to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., telling them that I had accepted their offer to operate under competition at 2¼d., and that if there was no competition it was understood that they were to operate at 2⅛d. These gentlemen knew that I had accepted 2⅛d.

542. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : You said you did not tell them?—They knew it all the same.

543. How did they know?—From the evidence of a person who was with them at the time.

544. By the CHAIRMAN: You have had a lot of trouble in regard to the payment to the millers?—Yes, during the early part of the business, but not so much latterly.

545. What has been done to date in regard to the Scheme as to the contract wheat?—The matter has been in the hands of the Crown Law Department for some time. I instructed them to fight the case, but I do not know what stage has now been reached. The matter has been humbugged month after month. I took up the case directly I assumed control of the department and shortly afterwards decided to fight the case with the millers. The Crown Law authorities do not seen to have taken any hand in the matter.

546. Mr. Hammond stated that the millers got clear of the wheat they put into the pool some time ago. Mr. Mitchell said that did not occur, so far as he knew, during his time. Has the money been paid during your time?—I do not think so, but will have the matter looked up.

547. The statement is that the millers have been treated differently from the farmers?—That is not so.

548. That while the farmers have had to wait, the millers have been paid?—That is not so.

549. I notice from the minutes of the Melbourne conference that the first advance in connection with the 1916-17 harvest was paid out of moneys due to the 1915-16 harvest?—How is that possible when there are only two million pounds held on account of the 1915-16 harvest?

550. It was money paid for the wheat sold?—The two million pounds would not go far towards paying the 3s. advance.

551. That money was used, whatever the amount was?—Not for the 1916-17 harvest, because the money has been held until recently.

552. An amount of money due on the 1915-16 harvest was paid to assist in the making of the advance on the 1916-17 harvest?—that would be so.