for instance, covering of trucks?— Certainly. We have had complaints in that connection every time. That applies not only to wheat, but also to super. I, myself, have lost ten tons of super, for want of coverings. It seems to me that the Railway Department do not understand the requirements of the farming community: or, if they do understand those requirements, they will not comply with them. It is an absurdity to send wheat down in a season like this, with three or four inches of rainfall, uncovered. At Midland Junction it has occurred that inches of rain have fallen on wheat which has never been covered. But I take it the Commission know all about that, and will inquire concerning it from men who are more closely in touch with it than I am. 2501. Suppose the Railway Department state that the trouble is that they cannot get sheets?—The easiest answer to that is, get sheets. If they cannot get sheets, let them make sheets. The wheat is more valuable than the sheets. 2502. Have you any idea where these sheets can be procured?—If the Railway Department want them, I have no doubt that I can get them, or that people can get them, for the department. It is an absurdity to say they cannot get sheets. Let them use something. 2503. By the CHAIRMAN: You think the Railway Department should carry the responsibility and pay damages if they do not provide sheets?—Yes. Of course, the Railway Department really means the Government. The Government have taken on the handling of the wheat; we have no say in it. If we hand over good wheat to the Railway Department, we have a right to expect good wheat to be delivered. 2504. Having regard to the difficulties of the past, do you think millers should be made to pay for the wheat they want?—Yes, if it is feasible. But you must be aware of what the system has been. Ostensibly to save handling charges the wheat was acquired in the first two seasons direct by the millers from the farmers, and they have stacked that wheat, belongings to the Pool, around their mills, and have started to eat it and take it away, and, without access to the gristing book, no man can say how much they have used. If the mills were all clear of stocks belonging to the Pools, I should certainly say that no wheat should be allowed to go into those mills until paid for. It would have the Government and the farmers to have disallowed any stacking around the mills, because what has been saved in stacking and handling has been more than eaten up in interest. The value of the wheat not paid for by millers has varied from £56,000 to £70,000, and in the past millers would have had to pay, say, seven per cent. on that amount. 2505. Then you would recommend that when the wheat is acquired next year none shall be stacked at the mills except that which is paid for?—Yes. 2506. In regard to silos, do you think that the cost of the recent investigation should be charged to the Pool?—I understand they have what is called a Bulk Handling Bill which will be controlled by a bulk handling board, distinct from the Wheat Scheme. And when the silos are erected there will be certain annual charge for their use, although they may be operated under the advice of the Minister controlling the Wheat Scheme. It will be an annual charge and not the capital charge that will fall on the farmers. Under these conditions the cost of trips to the East undertaken by certain officials should be charged against the bulk handling proposition, and there should be no charge against the farmer on the score of the silos until he makes use of the Scheme. Moreover, the farmers should handle the silos themselves, as in Canada, where they are operated by the Farmers' Co-operative Societies with financial assistance from the Government. 2507. As a body dealing principally with farmers' products, has your association taken into consideration the probable cost of the installation of the bulk handling system?—I am quoting from memory, but I think the cost of erecting the silos is estimated at about 1s. 4d. per bushel. 2508. That is storage only without machinery?—Maybe it is. 2509. Coming back to the cost to the farmer. You are aware that the Wheat Marketing Act provides for an advisory board dealing with the Wheat Scheme only?—Yes. 2510. They have amalgamated with that a bulk handling board; in other words, the Board has been added to and it has now the dual purpose of the sale of wheat and the bulk storage of wheat?—Yes. 2511. All expenditure incurred by this Board in carrying out the Act has to be provided out of the Scheme mentioned in the Act?—Then it is altogether wrong. As a contributor to that Scheme I have a decided objection to the Minister expending any money whatever except in marketing my produce. It is a breach of trust. 2512. The Minister has told us that the matter is not yet settled?—If it is settled in that way there will be some kicks coming to the Minister. 2513. Do you think the Board exceeded their duty in taking on this matter?—There is no doubt of it. They should pay for it out of the money they are getting from the Commonwealth for the erection of the silos. If I propose to erect a house I first employ an architect and make all sorts of preliminary inquiries, the cost of which is debited to the house. 2514. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: But if you wished to erect a store for the storage of the season's wheat, who would pay the architect's fees?—I believe the Wheat Scheme are spending £60,000 on the skeleton sheds, which they have debited against the present season's crop. When next season's crop comes along those sheds should be valued and taken over, and the value refunded to this year's crop. 2515. But if it is considered advisable to introduce bulk handling at this period, in the interests of the Pool the cost of any preliminary inquiries should go where?—To the bulk handling scheme and not to the Pool. 2516. Although it is in the interests of the Pool that these inquiries are made. We are appointed to investigate the operations of the Pool, yet we are considering bulk handling. To whom should be charged any costs in regard to the making of these inquiries?—The people who employ you, and not to me. I never asked for the Commission because, notwithstanding the honesty of its members, I do not think the Commission can do any good. 2517. You say the people who employ us. Then who employed the people to investigate bulk handling in connection with this Scheme?—The Government. 2518. No. Those controlling the Scheme?—I thought it was the Government. 2519. All the expenses in connection with the Scheme have been incurred by the Government, but you would not say that all the expenses should be paid by the Government?—No. 2520. You would allocate to the Scheme the expenses incurred on behalf of the Scheme?—Yes. 2521. And if the Minister investigated bulk handling for the benefit of the Scheme, the Scheme should bear portion of the cost?—No. The Scheme represents three distinct harvests, belonging to three different classes of people. I may be a holder in the 1915-16 Pool, yet not in the next. Any bulk handling system which may be brought in, or any charges therefor at present cannot possibly benefit the 1915-16 harvest, which is not yet closed. 2522. So any question of bulk handling in this State should be a purely Government act, without any reference whatever to the Scheme?—Absolutely. I think the farmers should go to the Government, outside the wheat marketing scheme, and suggest that they should start a co-operative bulk handling scheme and ask for a subsidy, or even an advance against the erection of the silos. After such erection those farmers could go to the Wheat Scheme and invite wheat for storage in the silos. When they put up the bulk silos, the cost is not going to be met out of the Scheme. 2523. By Mr. HARRISON: You appear to have strong objection to Government handling; can you give any reason for it?—Because my experience shows that Government methods are cumbersome, and cannot be successfully applied to any commercial enterprise. I have no reason to suppose that those methods have altered since I went through the public service as one of the Public Service Commissioners.