1830. Was the wheat stacked in such a wet condition as to make it detrimental to the good wheat which was there?—Yes.

1831. In your opinion, then, sufficient care was not taken with regard to the stacking?—It was not.

1832. As one who had acted as a sub-agent for a private firm, is it your opinion that this wheat is wet owing to the neglect of the agents at that time?—From what I can find out the agent is not liable; the Government really are liable for not having the stacks covered.

1833. The neglect then is due to those in charge of the Pool for not providing covering?—So far as I can see, that is it.

1834. Have you any reason to suppose that a lot of this wheat is wet on account of the time it was on rails?—Some of it, certainly. Some would be only wet but not in a bad condition.

1835. How long does it take a truck to dry after it has been in the rain for a week?—It all depends on the wind or the draught. In some cases if it is only wet with dew or a slight shower it will dry in two or three hours, but if it is thoroughly saturated it will take days to dry.

1836. I notice there are conflicting reports so far as this wheat which has been put into the stack is concerned. A number of men declare that no wet wheat has been put into the stack?—It can easily be proved by opening the stack.

1837. Is there any portion of the stack which can be inspected?—Mr. Hayes could point out several places where the wheat was wet. I am referring to the period between the 18th and 21st February. The front of the stack will have to be taken down. At that time the stack was only 10 bags high. The bags are carried to that height by the lumpers and then the stack is raised another 10 bags with the aid of the elevator. The bags will be probably somewhere about 10 deep.

1838. Will there be any difficulty in taking the stack down for the purpose of inspecting it?—All that will be necessary will be to put a few trucks along the face, fill them and stack into another bag. It would be as well for you to see Mr. Hayes on the matter. On one occasion I happened to come across an open portion of a stack. I had been sampling on one of the elevator stacks and I went round to sample another place, and they were levelling off ready to start the elevator. They had shifted a few bags on the top and I looked down and found that some of the bags there were absolutely black and that the wheat on the outside of the bags was rotten. I protested at once about stacking there. This portion of the stack is in B shed, Bay 45. There is another portion that I think you will find a report has been written about by Mr. Hayes and also by Mr. Gillespie, an inspector under this Scheme. It is lower down in B shed where it was opened up. I mentioned this to Mr. Keys and he said that Mr. Gillespie had nothing to do with the stacking, that he was only an inspector for the mill. Mr. Gillespie saw the stack opened up and the side was coming out, and to save it falling they had to rebuilt it. As soon as they shifted the outside walls the wheat inside seemed to be in a very bad condition.

1839. In your opinion, the same care is not being taken by the officers of the Pool as was done by the agents previously?—I do not think so. Wheat is put into the stack which should never be put there, and there is the danger of damaging the good wheat. As I mentioned before, the main object of the man in charge of the lumpers is to get the wheat in as cheaply as possible. Bags are coming down now which are a good deal mice eaten besides being rotten. It is not the fault of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., that the bags are coming down this year in the condition I have stated, and that no attempt is made to patch them. The result is that there is sometimes several inches of loose wheat in the bottom of the dirty truck. That is absolute waste.

1840. By Mr. BROWN: Are you sure it is 1917-18 wheat you are speaking of?—No other wheat is coming down to Spencer's Brook.

1841. Since Christmas it has been wet in the stacking and it is rotting some of the bags now?—Yes. What causes more leakage than anything else is the mice holes.

1842. By Mr. HARRISON: Are the lumpers paid by the day?—Yes.

1843. What is your method of drying the wet wheat at Spencer's Brook?—Putting on the floor, standing it on end, and making as much like windrows as possible.

1844. Have you plenty of floor space for that?—They are getting rather short now owing to so much wet wheat coming in.

1845. You spoke of the period between the 18th and 21st February. Was that the worst?—No, it is much worse now.

1846. The worse wet wheat has come in in June?—Yes.

1847. Would the stacking of it in windrows cause much difficulty and delay in moving the truck?—As a rule when a truck is condemned we pass it on to be reconditioned. With the exception of the necessary shunting, from one part of the yard to another, there is no delay.

1848. Then you could not set up as an excuse the trouble of shifting thus stuff to the drying space?—No.

1849. Have you any idea where this wheat came from which you say was put into the stack damaged?—No, but the tally books will show that.

1850. The same conditions could be set up by the wheat being a long period on the rails in continuous rain?—Yes, it would not require very much rain in a fairly water-tight truck.

1851. Is more damage being done in uncovered trucks in transit than in the stacks?—No.

1852. What becomes of the wheat found in the bottom of the truck as the result of perforated bags?—It is re-bagged and put into a special stack at the Brook. In regard to weevils; at the start I was tallying and sampling. Latterly I have been sampling solely. At first our instructions from Mr. Hayes were that if there were any indication of weevil the truck had to be passed on the mill. We sometimes got a good few trucks in a rake which retarded the unloading operations. Afterwards, about the 4th April, they decided to set up a reject stack at one end of "A" shed. That went on all right for about a week. But this affected the tally a good deal, and Mr. Forrester considered that the truck should not be condemned for weevil unless we actually found pitted grain. Of course we considered it sufficient if we found weevil on the bag, and we sent it on to the reject stack. Afterwards definite instructions came that we were not to condemn a truck of wheat for weevil unless we got pitted grain, and even then we were to condemn only the bags in which that grain was ground. It hurt me as a farmer to see weevils going into the stack. In the rush you can imagine the position of the sample trying to find pitted grain. He might test a bag half a dozen times before he found the spot where the weevils started. Yet the weevils might be on the outside of the bag.

1853. By the CHAIRMAN: Who sent those instructions to find pitted grain?—Mr. Hayes.

1854. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You were not to condemn the wheat unless you found the pitted grain?—That is so.

1855. By Mr. HARRISON: Is Mr. Hayes experienced in sampling and in recognising the quality of wheat?—Certainly.

1856. Is Mr. Forrester also?—I do not know.

1857. What is Mr. Hayes in charge of?—The clerical staff and the testing and the fixing of dockages.

1858. Has he, as officer over the samplers, to adjudicate on your judgment?—Yes.

1859. In sampling you have an instrument which enters six or eight inches into the bag?—Yes.

1860. Does not the wheat flow from some number of inches inside the bag?—We have always test for weevil up the side of a bag, endeavouring to get the samples from near the seams.

1861. Is that reject stack adjacent to any other wheat?—Yes, it is in "A" shed. Those orders were countermanded and that stack is still there.

1862. How far is this weevily wheat from any other wheat?—It is now closely adjacent.

1863. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: You say there is in the stack at present weevily wheat which was put into the stack with the knowledge of those responsible for the stacking?—Weevils have gone in on the bags, yes.