was made of that site; was it found suitable?—No, the present is a drier site and more convenient from the railway point of view.

671. All that was done was done in regard to levels?—Yes.

672. You said that you could not accept the wheat until January?—Yes.

673. Was that through the former Administration?—No.There is a number of small causes for this which have occurred during my administration.

674. Was the new site selected by Mr. Mitchell?—No. All the sites were gone into and selected under my administration.

675. Was it under your administration that the scheme for storing at Midland Junction, Spencer's Brook, Narrogin, and other places was framed?—Yes. It all occurred in my time. There was only a small survey made at Spencer's Brook in Mr. Mitchell's time.

676. Where has the principal loss occurred to the farmers in the handling of the wheat this season?—It is chiefly on the railway trucks from the time it leaves the country siding. As a rule some days elapse before the wheat reaches the depôt. As there is no cover on the trucks the wheat becomes soaked from day to day, and when in that condition it is difficult to know where to put the bags to drain.

677. What is about the average quantity of wheat standing in the trucks?—I don't know.

678. Do you know if there is any other material than tarpaulin which could be used as temporary covers for trucks in transit?—I am at present making inquiries.

679. It appears from a farmers' point of view that if the wheat could have been lifted in the drier months a large proportion of the loss could have been avoided?—Yes, but the railways could not lift it.

680. Because you did not start early enough?—Even then they could not have done it. We started to take it early in January. Very few farmers are able to deliver before that time. Deliveries before then are very small. Any season our worst features were the wheat lumpers' strike and the coal strike, and these two occurrences brought great delays.

681. Would there be any truth in the report that the strike at Midland Junction was brought about through the late arrival of the wheat, which meant that the men did not have sufficient to keep them employed?—No.

682. I understood from the newspaper that the chief reason for the strike was that they could only get enough material to handle for a few hours a day, and that the men were only making a little a week?—About a week before the strike that was the position, but during the two days before that took place the men began to make good wages.

683. Was there a supply of wheat three weeks before the strike?—There may have been a short week or two.

684. I saw a stack of wheat this year. The last portion of it was being cleaned. It had been raining for a few days. You have said you do not think it would be a good proposition to sell wheat locally. From what I saw I feel satisfied that there would have been a better asset for the Pool if there had been a direct sale of this wheat at the siding. You could not re-condition it at the time. Do you not think under circumstances of this nature it would be better for that agent to deal direct with such an asset while he had that asset?—With whom would he deal?

685. With the farmers of the district?—You cannot deal with the farmers of the district, for very few are able to purchase the wheat. Unless they are close to the station they find that the double carting prevents them from operating.

686. There was an asset on a particular date, and in my opinion this asset became a liability on the Scheme. Had an attempt been made to realise on that asset it might have been done. You trust the receiving agent to acquire the whole of the wheat in a centre. Do you not think he could be trusted to sell a small portion of it?—The whole of the wheat is checked at the depôts, but we should have no check if sales took place at the sidings. There might be isolated cases where it would pay the Scheme to sell lots at the siding, but it would be a difficult scheme to work. Very few of the farmers are financial enough to buy the wheat if they do want it.

687. Suppose your inspector was called by an agent to cite a case in the country, and this agent after inspection was given power to realise locally by advertisement for, say, three days or twenty-four hours, in some public position. Do you not think it would be better to realise if this could be done?—The inspector would have to report to the manager first in order to obtain authority to do that.

688. I have a case in mind at Doodlakine. I am fully persuaded that instead of being an asset it will be a liability on the Scheme, because I do not think it will pay for the jute that would be required. I think if you can see where an asset can be saved it should be done?—Taking it as a big proposition, the better way to deal with the matter is to handle the wheat as we are handling it now.

689. In losses of this kind, which do take place, you say that the agent has to deliver the amount he receives?—Yes.

690. Take the 1915-16 harvest, was there any claim by the board or the Scheme in connection with the acquiring agents over an amount that had not been paid?—I do not know.

691. This proves that the climatic conditions have more than made up the wastage in acquiring?—It looks like that.

692. If so, does it not make the acquiring agent somewhat lax in his methods?—Under the old system, yes, but not under this system, by which it goes straight to the depôts and can gain very little in weight. Under the present arrangement the acquiring agent delivers the wheat straight to the depôts.

693. Under the conditions I have just referred to, would the Scheme lose or would the acquiring agent lose in the cleaning up of the balance of the stack?—The agent must deliver his weights to the depôts.

694. My opinion is that the weight is more than made up through the climatic conditions, and he escapes that. There would be no claim yet there is a loss, and I think a regulation of yours might retain that asset instead of its becoming a liability. Your arrangement now is that the wheat must all go to re-conditioning centres?—If it will pay to re-condition it, yes.

695. I am referring to wet wheat?—Wet wheat may simply want drying to put it right.

696. I am referring also to loose wheat at the bottom on the floor? —Loose wheat if wet would not be worth re-conditioning. In the case of loose wheat, I daresay local sales would be beneficial.

697. I think in this particular stack there would be nearly 100 bags?—Was that 1917-18 wheat?

698. Yes. Will you make inquiries into that particular matter?—Yes.

699. Are you surprised to learn that directions were given to the local agent to realise?—No, if that would be a better proposition.

700. Are you also surprised to learn that double the amount could have been realised if the regulation had been so worked in that it could have been done by the local agents?—I do not know of any regulation which would prevent the best possible sale being effected if it was decided to realise.

701. Have you read Mr. Sutton's report on the file recommending that local farmers should be given the right to erect storage sheds on their own farm?—I do not know that I have seen that particular report.

702. Would this idea meet with your approval?—Not if the Government had to finance it.

703. You would not object if the individual financed it?—No. I could not agree to wheat being stored in private silos under the Government guarantee and in cases where the Government make an advance.

704. Mr. Allen referred to the audit to be paid for by the Scheme, and your reply was that you thought the Government audit was the better. Mr. Allen was referring to a continuous audit. Mr. Hammond in his evidence thought that would be good because any financial leakage would be sighted when it occurred. Do you agree with that?—I say that the auditing of the Scheme now is quite sound, and that no better system could be obtained, but that if the growers themselves decide that they wish an audit I do not think the Government will have any objection, providing the cost comes out of the Scheme. However, the Government will want to know that the growers themselves are agitating for it, and not merely a few people in Perth.