2039. There have been complaints that sites chosen by the Railway Department were unsuitable for stacking wheat in many instances?—Yes, I am not qualified to speak on that point. I knew certain stacking sites that were unsuitable and I was hoping they would be avoided in the future, and there were certain stations where wheat never should have been stacked after our previous experience. I motored approximately 800 miles with Railway Department officials selecting sites and was quite satisfied with such, providing that in certain instances the necessary filling-in work was done. The best possible available sites were selected at those sidings.

2040. That was after the first year's harvest?—Yes. The 1915-16 harvest revealed a good deal of weakness in things generally in the country. Attempts were made to stack at sidings in that year where no merchant in normal times would have dreamt of stacking, because he would have recognised the grave difficulties concerning upkeep.

2041. Then he was responsible for the wheat?—Yes. There was a good deal of wheat stacked that year with very little conception of the length of time it would remain there. Owing to difficulties of transport, stacks were held up and troubles arose which had not been foreseen.

2042. Did the wheat agents take every care in the way of protecting the stacks with roofing and sheltering the sides from the rain?—No. At some of them the attention was good, while at others on which I reported gross carelessness was displayed. In some cases the men were industrious and were trying to do the best they could, but often the best was not good enough. Sometimes I would point out certain defects and would receive an assurance that they would be rectified. In other cases I would state that I would return in a couple of days and see whether an improvement had been effected, and sometimes they would effect repairs. I stated all this in my reports.

2043. Were they in writing?—Yes, always.

2044. They should be available for the Commission?—They should.

2045. What you state would apply to all agents?—Yes. My reports were absolutely neutral. I had no personal row to hoe; my sole object was to obtain the best results for the farmer, because I felt that he was the man I was working for, and I reported as I saw things. My reports were without prejudice to any particular firm or agency.

2046. If we get those reports we might form an opinion so far as the various agencies are concerned?—Yes, and you will see what I thought of things at the time. I also took photos of some of the stacks, and attached them to the reports.

2047. By Mr. HARRISON: What experience had you at this work?—In this State, 15 years amongst wheat and produce generally. I also had some experience in New South Wales.

2048. By the CHAIRMAN: Has it not always been customary that a sub-agent in taking wheat from the farmer should weigh and sample each bag?—Yes. He would weigh and sample each bag?—Yes. He would weigh and sample each bag if he were doing his duty. Only yesterday we discovered a bag of wheat which was 50 per cent. wheat and 50 per cent oats. Unless a man sampled each bag he would not know whether he was buying wheat, oats, or barley. Those responsible should be dealt with, and docked it they merited docking.

2049. Did not the acquiring agents take care when they were running this business entirely outside the Pool, that if wheat of that description was sent in the sub-agent should be held responsible?—Yes, he was always docked for his irregularities.

2050. Has it not been the custom for the sub-agent to mark the weight on the bag?—If he was stacking he was supposed to mark it, and if he carried out his duty thoroughly he should mark the weight on each bag. But in the busy time of the year there would be many thousands of bags of wheat put on rails and trucked away without any distinguishing mark. During the earlier years large quantities of wheat were sent to millers direct, the farmer being content to take the miller's weight, believing that he was getting a square deal. In many instances there would be no scales at the sidings when the farmer would come in with his wheat, and there would not be any agent there. In those cases the wheat was put on the truck and sent straight away.

2051. Where there is a sub-agent acquiring the wheat and he has to weight it, he is expected to see that the wheat is up to f.a.q., and the weight marked on the bag?—Those were the instructions.

2052. If he did not carry them out he would be personally responsible?—Yes; but if the wheat came into Fremantle or reached the millers and the bags were not marked, no particular question would be raised. The miller would weight the wheat and pay for it accordingly. So far as the port is concerned, the Harbour Trust weighs, and those weights are taken. I have known wheat go into mills and old iron in it, and I know of one case where a rock with an old coat wrapped round it was in the middle of a bag. That was not discovered until the wheat went to the mill.

2053. It shows that every care should be taken by the sub-agent?—He should be a reliable man, or he will neglect both his employer's interests and perhaps rook the farmer. The man who sticks a rock in the middle of a bag of wheat does not put it there by accident, and the man who under-weighs does not under-weigh by accident; he does it with some intent. I have simply mentioned the rock and iron incident to show the possibilities when there are two or three teams waiting and the agent at the siding is anxious to be an expeditious as possible so that they will not pass him and go on to a quicker man. If I were sampling I do not know that I would sample every bag if I were satisfied that I was dealing with a square man. In all probability I would know a man's crop, and would know which was clean stuff, and which were the duffers to be avoided. An agent gets that knowledge and carries a sporting risk. I would regulate my action with the class of man I was dealing with, but I would carry the risk with my principals.

2054. You are of the opinion that it is necessary for extra care to be taken when the risk is not carried?—I will not say extra care; I should say necessary care. Necessary care should be followed or the sub-agent carries the risk. If I were a sub-agent operating at a country siding I would be responsible for every bag of wheat I took delivery of.

2055. Are they responsible under the present contract?—I have no actual knowledge of the conditions of that contract.

2056. You say that a number of stacks have been neglected through the inexperience of certain men and the carelessness of others. Has there been much loss to the Pool on account of that?—More than I cared to see.

2057. You have no idea of the quantity of the waste?—No.

2058. According to report, large quantities of wheat have gone into the water at Fremantle, some having been dumped as unfit for sale, while the loss of other quantities has been due to bad handling?—From the time I first went to the wharf i have seen a certain amount of waste. I have seen wheat disappear through the open wharf into the water underneath. I thought that quite a great deal of this could have been avoided, and during the present year by taking the necessary care I have been able to avoid it. The statements regarding the wheat dumped at the wharf have been grossly exaggerated by the lumber element at Fremantle. The lumper is not a bad sort of chap, he does not mean anything by his exaggeration, it is just his way of expressing himself. During the present year we have dumped 39 trucks of stuff over the side of the mole. Those trucks would average from 2½ to three tons or, roughly, an aggregate of 100 tons. I should say that not more than one-tenth of that stuff had ever been wheat. When wheat is split and rain follows, growth immediately springs up, even in the poor old sand on the wharf. If in addition there is a considerable growth of weeds round about the stack, with some old bags and old scrimming, it serves to swell the bulk of the rubbish very considerably. There might be only a few shovelfuls of wheat among it all, with the result that it is apt to be regarded as all wheat, whereas there is only a coating of wheat. Included in those trucks was all the old short cut wire from the roofs which had been dismantled.

2059. Then not more one-tenth of the stuff would be actually wheat?—It is doubtful whether even one-tenth of it was ever wheat.

2060. Then in your opinion the quantity so dealt with has not been excessive?—No, the loss by carelessness in treatment has been relatively small.