2061. Since you have been there you have given charge of the shipping of wheat as well?—Yes.

2062. Previously the agents were in charge?—Yes.

2063. As one representing the Scheme you have taken considerable care to protect the farmers' interest?—I could not have taken more care if the wheat had been my own private property. I have even made personal appeals to the men of the wharf to give the farmer a square deal. I have had a large measure of response, and indeed where I did not get it the men went out.

2064. Generally the men have been working well?—Yes.

2065. I see by the file that on the 9th March last a strong complaint was lodged in regard to the shipping of wheat, the loading of the "Austral Brook"?—My reply gives the whole thing in a nutshell.

2066. I have it here?—I was in the happy position of being able to add in reply something which I should have liked to report earlier, but that I thought I had better hold it in my sleeve. My reply states that Lloyd's surveyor went out of his way to congratulate me, saying, "That is the best cargo of wheat that has gone out of this port since the Scheme came into operation. I have never seen greater care taken to prevent waste." I took this as a tribute, and when that empty, rotten complaint went in I was able to reply accordingly. The writers of that report in the first instance showed gross ignorance in their subject, because in framing their complaint about the bad handling of the wheat they included the preparing of the wheat for the ship, the loading of it and the stevedoring. There we have three entirely different interests; we do the preparing, the Harbour Trust do the loading, and in this instance Captain Laurie's firm did the stevedoring. We were accused of having extra men. My policy has ever been to deal with the loose wheat at the earliest moment, because when it was in the bag I knew it was on its way to market. We passed through a trying time recently in the stretch of bad weather, yet we did not lose a dozen bags during that period. When it is remembered that we were working in the open air during the whole time, it will be seen that the policy of getting the stuff into the bags quickly is a good one.

2067. Referring to the Westralian Farmers', in your reply you state, "They have always been exemplary in their insufficiency of labour. I think this must be quite well known to yourself when they loaded the 'Kangaroo.' " Was that the last trip of the "Kangaroo"?—No, they have only loaded her once; it was not the last trip.

2068. Your letter continues, "When they loaded the 'Kangaroo' I made a careful inspection under the wharf and estimated that they lost approximately 9 tons of wheat in the river. In one spot there was a mound of wheat four feet in depth on the bed of the foreshore alongside the embankment." The Westralian Farmers' claim that they and they alone look after the interests of the farmers. Do you think their loading of the "Kangaroo" was in accordance with that claim?—No, my candid opinion is that the Westralian Farmers' have not served the farmers well.

2069. You think that what they look after is their own commercial interests?—Yes. With them the farmer had been a pretty small pebble on the beach.

2070. They have been acting similarly to other private acquiring agents?—No, I would not say that. Taken as a whole the inefficiency of the Westralian Farmers' has been greater than that of any other acquiring agent. That is my candid opinion.

2071. I notice you drew Mr. Taylor's attention to this loss?—Yes.

2072. Have you ever seen such a quantity of wheat as that in the water for which any other agent was responsible?—Never to such a great extent. The Westralian Farmers were more noted than any other firm for their insufficiency of labour, and for the undue percentage of boys employed. Possibly they thought they could work the business cheaper than other people could. The desire may have been all right in the first instance, the desire to economise, but the result was very considerably short of the mark.

2073. You mean that the losses were greater because of the insufficiency and inefficiency of labour?—Through their having employed insufficient and inefficient labour the losses have been greater throughout the whole State.

2074. Do you think that the want of experience in handling of wheat has been a contributing factor?—In some instances, yes. In other instances, so long as their own special end of the stick was looked after I do not think they cared much about the other fellow. Losses were made at the time I was re-conditioning a large quantity of wheat in "E" shed on the South Wharf. If my very earnest requests and instructions had been carried out by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., the Pool losses would have been considerably minimised. Some of the wheat was so seriously damaged that it should never have been lifted up to the truck. A first loss should have been made there and then, and it should have been dumped or sold as fertiliser. Instead of that being done, it was rebagged with other wheat and putrefaction set in throughout. I have every reason to believe that this firm thought of weigh pure and simple and nothing else.

2075. Is this the wheat which you informed me had been sent down for re-conditioning, and the smell of which was almost unbearable?—Yes. I was in serious trouble once or twice. The Harbour trust were driving me to get out of the shed, the navy people, and the health officer used to sniff round. I had to go very tenderly for some time until I had the back of the thing broken.

2076. What was done with the large quantity of bad wheat?—It was sold at various prices. One little lot, which seemed to me to be absolutely worthless, was given away to the carter. Immediately after that I discovered a buyer who brought his own bags and paid a nominal price. A little more demand came along and I raised this man up until we reached a figure which caused him to say there was nothing for him in the wheat. We had the greatest difficulty in disposing of it at a price to cover handling costs. I cannot imagine that it was ever suitable for consumption in any shape or form.

2077. There were several thousand bags of this?—The quantity was large. The records will show that I gave a little of it away to the carter and effected other sales at so much per bag.

2078. By Mr. BROWN: That record was sent to central office?—Yes.

2079. By Mr. HARRISON: Is it amongst your own papers?—It was included in the general returns of the wheat. We had so many thousand bags of wheat sent to us at "E" shed, and we had to account for it all. We re-conditioned it and everything that it was possible to re-condition for the mills was sent to the mills for gristing purposes. We made it into three grades: milling; No. 1 fowl feed; No. 2 and the rubbishy stuff, which consisted of great junks of black grain and dirt, and this was called wheat by those who sent it to us.

2080. By Mr. BROWN: had railway freights been paid on this refuse?—We had to pay freight and haulage to get it round to the wharf. The instructions given were that anything which could be lifted on to a truck must be loaded. I was assured that this was the case.

2081. By Mr. HARRISON: What wheat was this?—It was a part of the 1915-16 harvest acquired by the Westralian Farmers, Limited, and belonged to the Pool. Wheat from other agents was there also.

2082. Can you determine from which agents it was delivered?—I knew that the farmers had the worst stuff, because they had it spread all over an immense area owing to insufficiently of labour to cope with the work. The rain descended and created such havoc amongst it that it was absolutely impossible to either ship it or mill it in the condition it was then in. Whilst loading the "Austral Brook" we never left a day's work incomplete so far as loose wheat every night. They had thousands of bags there, hundreds of which were broken.

2083. Were many agents operating?—There were Darling & Son, Jas. Bell & Co., and the Westralian Farmers. There was nothing from Dreyfus & Co. or Dalgety's. The wheat from the Westralian Farmers produced the worst results of the lot.