of the world. I noticed that Dr. Duval said that the insurance companies were not insuring cargoes. Have you heard of any difficulties so far as Australia is concerned?—No. The shipping people have never protested.

637. Did you ever receive a report from Metcalf & Co. on the bulk handling system in this State?—I think so, but i am not sure.

638. We can get that report?—Yes, if it is in existence.

639. Did you ever see any protest from British manufacturers against Metcalf & Co. being given the work?—No.

640. Did you ever see a letter from Spencer & Co. addressed to Mr. Johnson as Minister; it is on the file?—No.

641. Did you ever hear that they had trouble with weevil in the timber silos in Canada?—No.

642. Do you know if they are troubled much with weevil in Canada?—I do not think they are.

643. In regard to the sheds for the stacking of wheat, tell us why you use galvanised iron instead of malthoid or other composition?—Because the composition roofs are never satisfactory, even on permanent buildings with walls, while on skeleton sheds none of these patent coverings would be effective.

644. You know that they have used it in the Eastern States?—Yes, but I understand that they have had no end of trouble with it and finally will have to cover it over with iron.

645. But they were using it in South Australia for the 1918 harvest?—Yes. They purchased and have held thousands of rolls, but in my opinion they will have to cover it with galvinised iron. The difference in the cost of iron and of malthoid and other patent coverings is not very great, because before putting on those composition materials it is necessary to make a complete roof of timber, and on skeleton roofs it is necessary to dress them with a dressing every three or four months, in order to make the covering effective. Last November I inspected a flour shed which was being erected for the Imperial Government and which was being covered with malthoid. They told me that the roof was perfect, but I found several leaks in it. Again, if ever the sheds come to be dismantled, we shall have in the iron a valuable asset, whereas the malthoid would be really a liability if we had to remove the sheds. I considered the iron the better proposition of the two, and I took the responsibility of turning down malthoid when proposed by Mr. Sibbald.

646. Did you have any advise from the departmental engineers on the question before you decided?—No. Mr. Sibbald wired from Melbourne for authority to purchase malthoid, but I refused. He again wired from Adelaide and I again refused to give him the necessary authority.

647. The residual value of iron roofing is greater than that of composit roofing?---Yes, considerably. 648. Did you ever get the comparative cost of the two classes of roofing?—Yes; I had the cost of malthoid roofing in South Australia, as compared with the cost of our own iron roofing. There was not a great deal of difference.

649. What is the cost of iron which is being used at present?—Sixty-five pounds per ton landed here.

650. By the CHAIRMAN: South Australia purchased at £35?—They did make a recent purchase at very favourable prices, but i do not think it came as low as £35; I think it was £45; unless f.o.b. American ports.

651. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You have no recollection of the cost of the composition roofing?—No.

652. You have not heard what it costs in South Australia?—Yes, I have the figures somewhere.

653. Does it amount to to something like •54s. per square complete?—I could not say from memory.

654. How do you find the work being done by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., as compared with the work of previous agents?—Fairly satisfactory. There have been difficulties in arriving at decisions and minor matters are causing a lot of trouble; but the work has been very fair. There are isolated cases in which the work has not been too good.

655. You have looked closely into the question of bulk handling and its cost?—Yes.

656. Did you see an article in one of the papers, an article dealing with wheat elevators, containing an extract from The Land, a paper in New South Wales?—No.

657. It is therein stated that the elevator constructed of concrete in New South Wales has cost £500,000, as against similar work in Canada costing £140,000. You have not seen that ?—No.

658. Have you looked into the question of the cost to-day of constructing elevators as compared with what the Canadian farmers have had to pay?—No, but I have been into the comparative cost here in normal times as against present day costs. I find that in New South Wales a tender was given of 10¾d. per bushel. Recently, at the last meeting of the Commission, New South Wales again asked for authority to construct an additional quantity of accommodation, and the highest tender was 6¼d. per bushel for the additional storage. That will serve to bring the total cost to a shade over 9d. per bushel for the whole of the additional bulk storage in New South Wales.

659. This article states that the elevator in New South Wales cost £500,000, while that at Vancouver cost £140,000. Therefore, the difference in interest alone would represent £23,000 per annum. Do you think that with that handicap in Australian, as against Canadian charges, it would be a good proposition for us to spend that excessive amount?—Yes, certainly, because by so doing we shall be reducing the exorbitant charge for bags. We have to store so much wheat, and if we can store a percentage successfully in silos for three years, it will represent a tremendous saving, not only on the present charge for bags, but on bags in future. Even taking the bags at a low rate and cost of storage, it will serve to reduce the cost of silos by 50 per cent. in three years.

660. But would that saving be debited against the capital cost of the silos?—That would be a question of policy, a question for the Government to decide.

661. But if we have a capital charge of three times as much on our Scheme as the Canadian scheme has cost, how is that going to affect the wheat grower in future, when conditions are again normal?—It certainly would appear to be a handicap but we have the bag system which is far more expensive, and the cost of which recurs every year.

662. But when things are again normal the savings in bags will be only commensurate with what the Canadian farmer will be saving on a much cheaper scheme?—Yes.

663. They pay as much, if not more, for bags in Canada as in Australia?—Yes.

664. By Mr. HARRISON: Mr. Hammond in his evidence stated that the Minister sitting with the Committee made it as nearly as possible an executive body. Both Mr. Mitchell and yourself have treated that Committee as an advisory committee, and have not given them quick administration of their recommendations. Do you think it would not be better for the management of the Scheme that there should be quick administration of recommendations?—Certainly, but Mr. Hammond was hardly right in saying that the Committee had been so treated. As I said before, I did not attend their meetings for the first six or eight weeks of my administration, because I wanted first to get a grip of the business. Since then I have attended every meeting of the Committee which I could attend. In addition, the Committee have the fullest information at their disposal, and I, as Minister, look forward to their recommendations because I found them useful.

665. You agree with Mr. Hammond that in bad weather anything requiring to be done to save property should be done quickly?—Yes.

666. Could you deal with such things more promptly if this Committee were executive rather than advisory?—No.

667. Not even if working under the methods of the time of the first Minister?—We are working under those same methods now.

668. Then the complaint of Mr. Hammond should not be made?—No.

669. If under Mr. Mitchell's administration the Committee did experience delay in getting their recommendations accepted, would that be one of the reasons why nothing was done in regard to shelter sheds?—No.

670. How do you account for Mr. Mitchell doing nothing beyond speaking of Spencer's Brook; a survey