Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 75
image 75 of 99

This transcription is complete

wooden silos; but they say it would not be necessary in concrete silos.

1810. Is it necessary to insure the wheat now in the sheds?—The Board have not considered it necessary. The sheds have galvanised iron roofing.

1811. Are the Board satisfied with the returns they have received of wheat delivered as compared with the wheat acquired ?—You are referring now to 1915-16?

1812. Yes?—I do not know that the point has ever been submitted to the Board.

1813. You know there have been complaints that large quantities of wheat were destroyed as unfit?—Not in 1915-16.

1814. Yes, 1915-16 wheat?—It is quite possible. I do not remember it.

1815. From what I know of the public service I have a certain amount of confidence in it, and I should be pleased if you would send on any file which you think necessary for the Commission to have, with a view to bringing about satisfaction as far as the working of the Scheme is concerned. You have a number of files, no doubt that will not assist the Commission, and other files that will assist?—That is the reason why I suggested that the apparent grounds were so and so, and I was going to suggest that so far as those matters were concerned I could pick out any files of interest to the Commission. If there are any other grounds of complaint you would like to trace and could indicate what they are, I could put my hands on the files. I do not want to anticipate the mind of the Commission on what lines you wish to inquire, but from the questions you have asked me I know now a little more, and I will pick out what files I think will be of interest and send them along.

1816. You realise we could not go through all the files?—I would not like the whole of the responsibility to be thrown on me in anticipating what the Commission want, and want they wish to inquire into, because then it might be said Mr. Hall withheld the papers.

1817. By Mr. BROWN: Have you any files dealing with demurrage in connection with shiploading and railways? I suppose the ships were not always loaded to time?—The ships have to pay demurrage; we do not. The ships are supplied almost entirely now by the purchasers of the wheat. We assist in every way because we realise it is mostly for the Imperial Government and the Allies.

1818. In regard to railway demurrage, is there much?—There is an interesting file on that. I think we did, in regard to the Railway Department, what was done in connection with the Harbour Department. We paid half the demurrage this year and withheld the other half until we arrived at an equitable arrangement.

1819. By Mr. HARRISON: Do you treat the railways as common carries in regard to the want of covering?—It is at owner's risk.

1820. Being a Government institution, cannot you get home on them for that?—The file will disclose what we tried to do. I take it the object of the Commission is to inquire into the rights and wrongs of the grounds of criticism lodged from time to time against the Scheme. Some I know of, but there are others known to the members of the Commission which I may not know of. We get complaints from day to day from various sources, but the Commission do not wish to waste their time is going into all.

1821. By the CHAIRMAN: The unfortunate position is that complaints have been made outside, but those making complaints have not volunteered to come forward. My own views are that unless those who are dissatisfied with the working of the Scheme will come forward and give us their views so that we can go into the matter, it is useless to continue the Commission on the lines we are doing, because we are getting the same evidence from day to day?—It is most unsatisfactory for the officers of the Scheme.

1822. And for the Commission as well?—If we knew what we had to fight we could produce the evidence.

1823. And we could ask you too?—Of course.

(The witness retired.)

JOHN MILLER, Farmer and Agent and latterly Sample at Spencer's Brook, sworn and examined:

1824. By the CHAIRMAN: You desire to make a statement to the Commission in regard to what has come under your notice in relation to the Wheat Scheme?—It was just with reference to the handling of wheat while agent for Darling at Bruce Rock for 1915-16 and 1916-17 reasons, and latterly with the way, when at Spencer's Brook, the wheat was handled there. With reference to Darling's agency, I wish to make a comparison between the way the wheat was handled by the acquiring agents previously and the way in which it is arriving at Spencer's Brook to-day. Whilst I was agent for Darling's my instructions were very explicit. I was not allowed to stack wheat unless it was on sufficient dunnage. If any rain came and the wheat was wet in any way in the stack it was my place to report it to Darling's, and if the stack dried I was not allowed to let it deteriorate in the stack. On one occasion during the last season when I was operating in 1916-17, there was a large quantity of rain some time in March. At that time my stack was in progress of erection, and I reported by wire to Darling that the stack was in a very bad condition. It was wet to the extent of five or six bags down. I advised Darling's that it was necessary to either truck these top bags or re-stack them. Darling's immediately wired back to me the same day to do what was necessary, that it was impossible to truck. At present day at Spencer's Brook the wheat is coming down in a very wet condition. It seemed to me there had been on effort made to dry the wheat. With reference to Darling's I told them I was unable to bear the expense of re-stacking, that something like 1,100 bags would have to be taken off. I did take them off and re-stacked them at the siding. While that operation of re-stacking was in progress, I shifted the bags until they were dry and the stack opened up very well; there was no moisture in it. I bring this up as against the condition the wheat is being sent down to Spencer's Brook this season. In regard to Spencer's Brook, I asked that certain papers be placed before the Commission so that you could question me on the matter. I do not know whether the papers have come before you. It has been reported, I understand, that wheat has been stacked wet at Spencer's Brook, which of course must be detrimental to the stack. The evidence I asked should be placed before the Commission would be more explicit and explain better what I wish the Commission to know. There are portions of the stack at Spencer's Brook in which the bags are black and rotten.

1825. This wheat is stacked at the sidings in such a manner that it has rotted already?—Some of it has.

1826. We have the files here that you have referred to. There has been some dispute at Spencer's Brook amongst the men?—My opinion is that the trouble is owing to the dual control. I was engaged by Mr. Keys and told to report to Mr. Hayes, the officer is charge at Spencer's Brook. I did so. Some time afterwards I found there was dual control; Mr. Hayes was in charge of the clerical staff and Mr. Forrester was in charge of the lumpers. It was our position as samples to see that no bad wheat or wet or weevilly wheat went into the stack. Sometimes that affected the tally of the lumpers because it would necessarily retard the progress of the work so far as getting the wheat into the stack was concerned. It seemed to me that the only object Mr. Forrester had was to get the wheat in as cheaply as possible. When we had to pass certain stuff out as being under f.a.q. or weevily, or for other causes, it was detrimental for his tally and some friction arose between Mr. Hayes and Mr. Forrester on that matter. We could not really work comfortably. At times wheat had gone into the stack when it had been rejected by the samples.

1827. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Whose fault was that?—Mr. Forrester, I should say. We rejected it and then when our backs were turned the wheat would be put into the stack.

1828. By the CHAIRMAN: Were instructions issued that no wheat had to be stacked unless it was passed by the samples?—That would be the instructions to Mr. Forrester, not to the samplers.

1829. You know that there were several thousand bags of wheat put into the stack which were only fit for pigs' food?—I did not know of that.