send." Consequently the millers grist any wheat we send to them.

736. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Under the other arrangement the miller would accept only the best quality of wheat?—Yes, to advantage himself all the time.

737. Mr. Harrison asked a question regarding co-operation. Do you think that the wheat growers, if co-operating amongst themselves, could take full charge of this Scheme and run it?—I do not.

738. On what ground?—I do not think they have the necessary technical knowledge to control the Scheme.

739. Could not they appoint men in the same manner as is now being done by the Government?—They might do so; but, from the Government standpoint, the Government could not, unless they had full control, guarantee any amount for the wheat controlled by another body.

740. Then it is the finance that is the main objection?—Yes. I think the whole of the farmers of Western Australia are not in a co-operative society.

741. I know they are not now. In your opinion, it is impossible for a co-operative society of farmers in this State to take control of the wheat because of the financial question?—That is one point. Here is another point: Where you have a small co-operative body working in a district, that body will have a representative. Say the leading man in that co-operative body comes along with a load of wheat that is not up to standard. It is only natural to expect that in some instances the representative would pass that wheat as f.a.q. wheat.

742. If the society did that, if it had the finances to do that, it would be at the society's risk?—Yes, if the society was doing its own financing. I do not hesitate to say that if the farmers can finance the proposition as it stands now, the Government would willingly hand it over to them.

743. The agreement with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., provided for a bond of £20,000 as security for the carrying out of the agreement?—Speaking from memory, I am not sure what the bond was for this year.

744. I think the Act provides £20,000?—Was that not £20,000 under the old conditions.

745. It was £20,000 each under the old conditions but £20,000 for one under this agreement?—I notice it is £20,000 according to the Act.

746. Yet I find you reduced their liability to one farthing per bushel?—Certainly the only liability is to deliver to the depôts.

747. You could not claim above one farthing per bushel if there was any fault to find?—That is so.

748. What good was the £20,000 bond then?—It was to carry out the conditions. While there was practically no responsibility. Under this arrangement they were to deliver f.a.q. at the depôts.

749. I notice, looking through the papers, the reason given by the W.A. Farmers, Ltd., why the liability should only be one farthing per bushel was because they had only set down one farthing per bushel profit?—The W.A. Farmers' side of it.

750. And that was accepted by the Government as the reason?—One farthing is likely to meet anything that may arise.

751. It was thought the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., should not meet any damages over and above what profit they were making from the Scheme?—That is what was agreed upon when they put in their quote.

752. They would be put to no loss no matter what negligence took place?—That is so. It was thought that under the agreement there would be no trouble.

753. There must be some consideration if it was necessary to provide £20,000 as a bond to carry out their duties and to meet any liabilities. It must have been thought there was some necessity to do it and provide one-sixth of the bond previously provided?—One-sixth, yes, because it was the bond for previous years.

754. I notice that comments have been made at the Australian Wheat Board Committee in regard to the cost of handling and it seems that Western Australia is the cheapest of all the States?—That is so.

755. There was a pamphlet got out dealing with the costs. Have you seen it?—Not that I can remember.

756. In which comments were made of the costs of the various States?—I have not seen it.

757. The Australian Board dealt with this question and on one or two occasions we have it pointed out that the interest paid for the two years in Western Australia was over £111,000, which was considered very high. Mr. Mitchell admitted it was high and he could give no reason. I notice the secretary of the Australian Board said that the 3d. per bushel was more than it should have been. The interest on 3d. a bushel for the year comes to one-third of a penny a bushel, which is too high a charge. Do you agree with that?—That is the case, there was an additional 3d. paid here.

758. Did it last for the two years?—No, it was paid in 1915-16.

759. But did it not last the two years?—Interest may have been charged on the amount for two years.

760. I notice Mr. Bice said, "Probably that is the foundation of the lying statements"?—I do not know what lying statements he referred to, but I have never seen the pamphlet.

761. It is not here, I do not know what he refers to, but it must be pleasing to you to know that Western Australia was handling wheat so much cheaper than the other States. Does that not prove as far as the officers are concerned that every care was taken?—I should say it would do.

762-3. When you were at the conference you drew attention to the fact that there was an agitation going on for the appointment of an executive committee. You said that there was a movement among the farmers to have an executive appointed in the States and you drew the attention of the Australian Wheat Committee to this agitation?—I think my words were that there was a movement among one section.

764. What was your reason for wanting the Australian Wheat Board to pass a resolution to strengthen your hands in regard to the executive board?—The reason is that the Federal Government are equally responsible with the State for any amount over 3s. a bushel, and I wanted the opinion of other Ministers as well as of the Federal Government as to whether they agreed to an executive board. Personally, I let them see that my Government was opposed to it.

765. You told us just now that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with the control of the States?—But the Federal Government have a right to say if any State can delegate its responsibilities in view of the fact that they are financing, and that they have no control beyond overseas selling and shipment, that when it comes to financing and they have no control at all, they would look to the States Government for protection, and I wanted something said about handing the Scheme over to an executive body, and that is the reason why I brought the matter forward.

766. But is that not a decision for Parliament?—It was a matter for me to get an opinion of the Federal Government and Ministers upon before I put it before the Government here.

767. They did not give you a decision?—Yes.

768. According to the solicitor of the board, Mr. Power, the State has full power to hand over to any Commission full control of their internal working—Yes. Neither the State nor the Federal Government will do it while being financially responsible.

769. Do you not think that it seems as if you wanted the Board really to condemn the Scheme so that you might be able to tell Parliament, when dealing with the Bill, that the Board opposed the formation of the executive board in this State?—No. I want to let the Board know that the opinion of the Government was that they were opposed to it, and were desirous of finding out whether the Federal Government would stand the control being handed to an executive board.

770. Your Government are against giving any executive body power to control the internal affairs so far as wheat is concerned, in this State, so long as you are guaranteeing it?—That is the position.