finalised before either the millers or the agents entered upon their operations with the Pool. It stands to reason that under those conditions a lot of argument can be raised, after the work is commenced, as to whether certain things are or are to be paid for or not. I want the Commission to be good enough to make inquires as to the working of the Advisory Board. We know, and if the Commission turn up the minutes of the Advisory Board's meetings they will find, that there have been long periods when no meetings have been held, periods running into as much as three months. Mr .Johnson, I am quite satisfied in my own mind, did the very best he could for the farmers so far as his experience would allow him; and Mr .Johnson during his term of office used invariable to consult the board, and whatever conclusion they came to regarding matters their advice was followed. Mr. Johnson was succeeded by Mr .Mitchell, who, I am informed and I believe it is correct, never attended one a meeting of the Advisory Board. Mr. Mitchell appointed Mr .Sibbald manager at £1,000 a year without the knowledge or advice of the Board. Mr .Mitchell was followed by Mr. Baxter, who accepted Mr. Sibbald's resignation, and also appointed another manager, Mr .Keys, without the knowledge or the advice of the Advisory Board. I believe Mr .Keys' appointment was made while Mr Baxter was in Melbourne. I suggest to the Commission that any commercial man would have provided in the first agreement that if no liability was to attach to the agents at the 30th September regarding the out-turn of the various stacks they had round the country, some rebate should have been made, because the agents were paid 3½d. per bushels for acquiring, sampling delivery, and out-turn. That 3½d. should have been made up for certain services. In this connection I may point out that the last agreement with the Westralian Farmers shows that something in this nature could have been arrived at in the first place, since in that last agreement the whole commission is split up for certain services. The continuation agreement provided that the operation of the original agreement should continue, under certain conditions, until the 31st December, 1917. It provided, first of all, that the quantity of wheat held on the 30th September was so many bags, and that the Minister should debit the agent with 1s. per bag on so many bags, being a debit of 1s. per bag on three per cent. of. the total number of bags. But then sub-clause (b) says: "As the Minister may, be of opinion that the agent had before the 30th September neglected to protect and care for any existing stacks as required by clause 4 and 7 of the original agreement in such manner as was customary in the wheat trade, particularly in view of the period they were on hand for caretaking, and that the above deduction would not be a fair one to cover loss on such stacks, the Minister shall notify the agent in writing of the stacks which are not so properly protected and cared for, and which should be for that reason not covered by subclause (a), "which is the subclause I read first. Then subclause (c) provides: "Where a stack has been notified by the Minister under subclause (b). and the agent agrees, or by arbitration it is found, that the agent has not exercised due care and protection in relation to that stack, then the agent shall be alone responsible for all damage caused by such breach, and shall at his own cost do all re-conditioning and re-bagging to the satisfaction of the Minister, except as to damage, re-condition or re-bagging caused or rendered necessary by fire, flood from below, weevil, or plague of mice." I want the Commission to mark the clauses in the continuous agreement, because I intend to refer to certain matters in connection with some of the stacks. The claims for re-conditioning under the 1915-16 continuous agreement up till May, 1917, total approximately £16,000. I should like the Commission to make inquires into these claims, as to what has been paid, and I will refer you to two or three particular items to give some indication as to what has been done with regard to these claims. You will find on the files of the Wheat Commission in connection with the 1915-16 harvest and the Greenhills stack re-conditioning a letter to James Bell & Co from Mr .Hall for the manager, dated 18th August, 1917. The letter read—

Messrs Jas. Bell & Co., claim £144 6s. 10d. for expenses incurred in re-conditioning above stack owing to alleged mice plague. Although we cannot admit the existence of a plague of mice, there is no doubt that a lot of damage was done by mice that was not contemplated when the Commission rates were fixed. Under those circumstances it may be equitable to allow some compensation for out-of pocket expenses, Where however, carelessness. negligence were shown, as in the present case, a substantial dock should be made from any such allowances. In this case I think the deduction should be at least £24 6s. 10d., thus leaving £120 which might be offered to the claimants as per accompanying letter.

Therefore, in this claim for re-conditioning the Greenhills stack, where carelessness and negligence were shown, it is proposed that the dock should be £24 6s. 10d. There is another that I will refer the Commission to. The letter is addressed to L. Dreyfus & Co., and is dated 17th August, 1917—

Adverting to your claim for £357 14s. 3d., for cost of re-conditioning Badjaling stack, under the terms of the 1915-16 continuous agreement, I have to advise that this claim cannot be admitted in view of certain items of negligence that have been reported from time to time in connection with the building and upkeep of the stack. Inasmuch as this stack has been black listed for negligence, the Scheme will not expect to receive from you the allowance for agents' usual expenses for upkeep of stack to 30th September, 1916, based on 1s. per bag on three per cent. of the number of bags in the stack at that time. In view of this and all the circumstances, I am directed to offer you £320 in full satisfaction of your claim.

In this case negligence was reported and the stack was black listed for negligence in connection with the handling and the building of it. There was a stack at Quairading of 3,500 bags, put there by Dalgety & Co. that had no covering at all. It had 14 inches of rain on it and it was removed in a rotten condition. It would be interesting to know whether Dalgety's were ever charged anything for their negligence in this direction. I would draw the Commission's attention to the minutes of the Wheat Marketing Advisory Board dated Thursday, 2nd August, 1917, paragraph 4 of which reads:—

The secretary's report regarding Dalgety & Co.'s stack at Quairading was submitted, and in view thereof the committee decided that the company showed considerable and unjustifiable neglect in the handling of the wheat at this siding and are therefore deserving of severe censure in the matter, and that the company be advised accordingly.

I am only an on-looker and only a wheat grower, but I am advised that Dalgety & Co. were never charged anything in regard to that stack. From the point of view of a participant in the Pool, it seem peculiar that there should be different rates of commission paid in all the different Australian States. Under the first Pool Western Australia was paying the highest rate, with South Australia, I think the rate was ¼d. more than that of Victoria and New South Wales. Last year, Western Australia was paying the lowest rates. It appears to me that in a big scheme like this where you have practically the same agents handling the wheat in the different States, the rates and conditions and the terminating days of the agreement should be uniform. The terminating days of the first agreement in the other States were different. Some ran out the 31st October. In South Australia, the Farmers' Company told me that their first agreement ran on until the whole of the wheat was delivered. Even up to within the last two months there have been serious claims on the Scheme, that is on the farmers for demurrage. These claims have been made by the Railway Department. I can ask you to make inquiries with regard to one particular demurrage charge made as recently as May last at Kellerberrin. The capacity of the mill at Kellerberrin is 520 bags per day. The manager of the Wheat Scheme sent 40 trucks there and they remained for days and the Scheme was charged £48 for demurrage. If that is a sample of the management we can quite understand why we do not get more dividends. In regard to our request to have the Advisory Board made an executive board, we put that forward principally so that we may get men on it who have got the brains and the ability to manage our business and that they will not be subjected to any ricochet of poli-