were removed from the present Minister to an Executive Board, it would be to all intents and purposes a Government scheme. One cannot get away from that.

893. You mean that one eliminates the element of personal interest?—Not so much that, but the fact that people regard the Government always as fair game. Further, because it was a Government scheme, you would have a necessary amount of red tape, from which you could not get away even under an Executive body. I can see difficulties, and also advantages. To discuss the matter I would have to give it considerable thought. In my opinion it would be inadvisable for the Government to do this work if reasonable arrangements can be made for a private firm to do it.

894. By Mr. BROWN: Prior to Mr. Mitchell's control, did the Advisory Committee meet on fixed days or at fixed times?—Not at absolutely fixed times, but usually on every second Thursday. If there was any special business, however, the meeting day would be altered. Once we were anticipating some returns to come in on the Thursday, and we postponed the meeting from the usual meeting day until Friday, so that the returns could be put in order for us to deal with.

895. Who was in official control between the meetings, doing all the other work of the Scheme?—Mr. Hall, our present secretary, was in constant attendance. I was not constantly in the city, but on my return special matters were referred to me.

896. When Mr. Mitchell took charge, you were supposed to go to your own department and attend to requirements there?—Not quite at first. I think Mr. Mitchell took charge shortly after the middle of the year, probably in August. I was associated with the Scheme until, I think, the following January. But after Mr. Mitchell took charge, my connection with the Scheme was never as intimate as prior to that.

897. It ceased entirely between the time Mr. Mitchell began control and the time he left?—Yes, and even for some months later. I really did not get in touch with the Scheme again until after my visit to Melbourne.

898. Who was responsible for your re-appointment to the Committee?—I presume my present Minister.

899. You received your appointment from him?—From the Executive Council. I presume my Minister was responsible for that.

900. By Mr. HARRISON: It appears, when Mr. Mitchell was administering the Scheme, it was the policy of the Government that you should do the work, more particularly in regard to the production of wheat, rather than attend to the Scheme?—Yes.

901. Was your work in regard to the creation of new varieties of wheat going backward?—That kind of work was still going on, but I was not able to give it the personal attention that I should otherwise have done, because the Wheat Scheme took up some of my time.

902. Were your officers at the various farms or experimental plots doing good work and following out your instructions?—Had I been able to have a competent staff at these stations, the work would not have gone back, but in a new country, where that kind of work is altogether new, it is impossible to get the class of men unless we train them.

903. Then there were good grounds for him getting you to take up that particular work?—It was desirable that I should do it. What I would like to say is that the Scheme work, up to that stage, was, I believe, part of my work. The Minister called on me at short notice because it is necessary to realise that the Scheme work was suddenly sprung on us, and as it was a matter relating to wheat it became part of my work to deal with it.

904. Was there a strong feeling in the country that caused Mr. Mitchell to take that view?—There was a feeling in the country that I was not doing the work they would like me to do.

905. They thought you were more valuable in other work than on the Scheme?—A good many did.

906. Was that on account of their not being conversant with the working of the Scheme and your other work— the relative values?—I think it was, because before I severed my connection with the Scheme I explained this to a body of farmers in the Geraldton district, and they recognised then what I was doing was my legitimate work. It was due to misconception of the relative values of the work I was engaged on.

907. You were a few months under this particular Minister before you were retired from that work?—Yes.

908. Mr. Hammond complains that the Advisory Committee's recommendations were not carried out promptly. Did you realise anything of that?—I could not specify anything particular, but I did realise that the Minister was not in sympathy with the Advisory Committee.

909. Did you feel that the work of storage went back between the two Administrations?—May I explain that I am looking at it from a personal standpoint. I felt that the Minister was not in sympathy with me. As soon as I joined the Scheme I had that feeling, and that may have tinged my view as to the Advisory Committee. I did not discuss it with the Advisory Committee.

910. You took a great interest in bulk handling, gave lectures and so on?—Yes.

911. You had some definite work in hand prior to Mr. Mitchell's regime; did that fall back?—It did until Mr. Mitchell's visit to Melbourne.

912. Do you think, if there had not been a change of administration, we might have hurried along wheat storage prior to this date? I asked Mr. Mitchell a similar question—whether anything definite had been done as to bulk storage and whether any item had been finalised, and his reply was that nothing had been finalised to date?—Yes, but is not that the fault of Parliament?

913. The change of policy interfered with your work?—Yes, because up to the time Mr. Johnson left office there was an agreement about to be finalised with Metcalf & Co. for the installation of the initial works in connection with bulk handling. That went back.

914. Did Mr. Mitchell have anything to do with Metcalf & Co.?—He met them in Melbourne.

915. Do you know of any particular work going on at the country stacks?—No, I am not acquainted with the details of the Scheme; I do not know which are temporary stacks and which are not.

916. You are on the Advisory Board now?—Yes.

917. Mr. Baxter yesterday did not see that I was referring to loose wheat. There is a certain amount of loss in clearing up the bottom of stacks; do you think it would be advantageous to the Scheme if that loose wheat were disposed of at the local centres?—If it can be done. I believe arrangements are made in that connection because at the last meeting one of the members raised that question and asked if some of the farmers at country towns could not obtain wheat that was there, and we were given to understand they could, and the general manager wanted to know the names of those who wished to obtain it—damaged wheat.

918. There are certain expenses, jutes, new bags, the railage, the picking up of wheat that is cleaned up from the ground, does the soil mixed with the wheat become a conductor of moisture because the bags have become wet?—Yes, they would tend to do so.

919. There would be more danger of wheat mixed with soil than if it were clean?—I am sorry that off-hand I cannot give an expression of opinion. What I thought you meant was that if wheat contained soil, would it not be a transmitter?

920. It becomes a conductor?—Not so much a conductor if the soil contained wheat that would absorb moisture from the soil. If there was damp soil in the bag of wheat it would deteriorate the wheat more rapidly than if the damp soil were not there?—Yes, because the wheat would tend to absorb the moisture from the soil.

921. Do you think much wheat is lost in transit in consequence of not being properly covered?—It depends on how long it is in transit. A slight shower does not damage the wheat much, but if it were heavy rain for a long period, it would damage it considerably.

922. Weather like we have had during the last few weeks?—Would damage it considerably. In connection with that the damage is limited often to the layers near the bag. The wheat starts to grow and protects the wheat in the interior. May I just add something that I have thought about in connection with some questions you asked me this morning? In order to get a proper viewpoint of these answers we must realise that the Scheme in its initial stages was only supposed to be of a temporary