only made for a limited time, expiring on the 31st October or the 30th November, 1916. It was as rental for the decreasing quantities of 1915-16 wheat that were on the Trust's premises at Fremantle. When the new season's wheat was likely to come in, the Harbour Trust wrote stating that the rate would be the same as it was prior to the time when the £500 was paid, namely, one-twelfth of a penny per bag per week for wheat in the shed, and one-twenty-fourth of a penny per bag per week for wheat in the open. We then asked them to reconsider that, and they altered the amount to £1,000 per month, which was considered less on the quantities anticipated for the year than one-twelfth or one-twenty-fourth of a penny. Our object was to make the best possible arrangement with the Harbour Trust on behalf of the Scheme. We still think the charge is too much but have to pay it.

1781. The charge was first of all at so much per bag?—Originally it was one-sixth and one-twelfth of a penny per bag. That went on for about three months.

1782. The rental was not based on the space occupied?—It was £1,000 for whatever space in the yard was required for the wheat. We told the Trust that their charge of one-sixth and one-twelfth of a penny was for the period when we were getting big quantities of wheat in and were being delayed as to shipments through causes beyond our control. They then agreed by altering their regulations to accept one-twelfth and one-twenty-fourth of a penny for a limited period of two or three months. We then said we were getting rid of a lot of this wheat and suggested an all-round sum per month. After a lot of barneying they agreed to £1,000 per month. Later on when we were getting rid of more wheat we told them they would have to meet us and they reduced the £1,000 to £500 for the remainder of 1916.

1783. On what basis are you paying now?—We are being charged £1,000 a month but are actually paying £500 a month. That is to say we are holding the money back. The £1,000 a month business expired at the end of November last year. Ever since then we have been at them to reduce the amount. We are not putting any new wheat into the yard and are only getting rid of the old 1916-17 wheat. We say it is up to them to make a substantial reduction. We think, as a fact, we ought not to be paying such heavy charges, and we are fighting the Trust as the present time.

1784. You are liable for the full £1,000?—Yes.

1785. Would it not be better to finalise this matter?—The best thing in the world if we could do so. In the meantime we are holding the money.

1786. How do these charges compare with the port charges in the Eastern States?—I understand they are out of all proportion, but Mr Keys would give the Commission a better idea.

1787. Are the services rendered at Fremantle in connection with shipments different from those rendered in the Eastern States?—Yes. This is what I may call H. O. T.

1788. Do you think the change of Ministers has caused delay in regard to storage capacity for our harvest?—There has been practically no delay.

1789. There has been nothing done except to erect these sheds?—The wheat is being protected.

1790. Was not bulk storage advocated by the Board in Mr Johnson's time?—I do not think so. The question of bulk handling and bulk storage had never been put before the Wheat Marketing Committee until quite recently. Bulk handling was part of the policy, if I read the newspapers aright, of the Liberal Government, and, I have reason to believe from the Press reports, part of the policy of the National Government. There has, therefore, been a continuous policy so far as bulk handling is concerned.

1791. And yet nothing has been done?—that is not the faults of the Governments.

1792. By the CHAIRMAN : It is owing to want of money?—This I think was caused by the Legislative Council in their wisdom.

1793. By Mr HARRISON : Do you think it would be a good plan for the Scheme to underwrite its own fire risk in this State?—Not at the present rates. All we insure now is the product of the mills, and the wheat sheds at the depots. There is no wheat insured.

1794. Are the acquiring agents responsible for insurance?—No, It has not been considered necessary in normal times, and it is not considered necessary in these times, to insure the wheat.

1795. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN : Regarding payment of commission to the acquiring agents, were they paid on the wheat the acquired, or on the wheat they delivered; that is to say, were they paid on surplus wheat?—In 1915-16 and 1916-17 they were paid 1½d. on the whole of the surplus. In 1916-17 they were paid 2d. on the wheat shown on the certificates, and in 1915-16 they were paid 1½d. on the wheat shown on the certificates.

1796. That is, they received no commission on the 1915-16 surplus?—Yes; they received 1½d. One firm has demanded the full acquiring commission of 3d. on the whole of the surplus; but we have refused that demand on the ground that the firm did not, in point of fact, acquire the surplus. The firm only shipped the surplus, and we expressed readiness to pay commission to that extent. I think the matter will go to arbitration.

1797. By the CHAIRMAN: Have you had time to prepare the return as to damaged wheat?—Not yet. As regards the dumping of some wheat which I mentioned yesterday afternoon, I wish to explain that there has been a considerable quantity of stuff dumped, but that there is practically no wheat in that stuff. That is to say, the stuff is the clean-up, not of the stacks, but of the sites—shovelled up, cinders, mullock, weevil infected earth, to be got rid of in order to give us as clean a site as possible. There has been very little actual wheat destroyed. At Fremantle for this year at any rate—I have not been able to get at the records for last year—there has not been more than a maximum of six bags of wheat dumped at Fremantle.

1798. The question I asked yesterday referred to 1915-16 wheat?—I thought you asked about the whole lot.

1799. I was referring to the 1915-16 harvest?—With regard to that, I should say we could not tell the quantity dumped for that year. It would no, in the ordinary course, be of vital interest to us. because the agent was responsible for the out-turn according to the certificates and he was entitled, under his agreement, to take into consideration the natural increase as a set off against any loss.

1800. BY Mr HARRISON : But as from the date on which the Scheme took over, the Scheme would have to be responsible for the dumping of wheat unfit, say, for poultry, the lowest grade you have?—there would be a record only as regards the bags.

1801. Would there be no record of pick-up wheat?—Yes. Pick-up wheat we would sell. that would be all right. Only six bags of wheat have been lost at Fremantle since the first January, 1918.

1802. If wheat were carted away from a site, would you get a record of that?—No.

1803. If wheat were taken from the Fremantle wharf and dumped into the ocean, would you get a record of that?—Our own man is there all the time, and he knows what wheat is handles. Of course, wheat may be stolen or dumped. But anything dumped in the ordinary way our man would know of.

1804. If any wheat were dumped and the cost of the dumping had to be paid by the Scheme, it would be recorded; someone would have to pay for the dumping?—Possibly it would be recorded. If there were only six bags dumped from time to time, it would not necessarily be recorded.

1805. By the CHAIRMAN : You pointed out that the money due to the Fremantle Harbour Trust for storage of wheat is still being held?—I did not say we were holding the whole lot. We are holding back on the basis of £500 per month until the Trust settle the point whether they will reduce the charge to £500.

1806. Have you paid anything to the Trust during the past twelve months?—Yes.

1807. On the basis of £500 per month?—Yes.

1808. The balance you are holding is the disputed amount?—Yes; it can be put that way.

1809. Do you think it would be necessary to insure wheat put into wooden silos, for instance?—I do not know sufficient about the matter. Our experts say that it would be necessary, because of the danger, in the