Wheat (1) - Part 2

Image 118
image 19 of 100

This transcription is complete

it was no use talking until we got the wheat rebagged, and I said that we did not want it rebagged. 2562. The letter which is from Mr. Seymour of Dalgety & Company, states that the wheat is in a damaged condition and that it should be rebagged, otherwise he would not be able to dispose of it at a satisfactory price. He adds that he has disposed of 200 or 300 bags at 4s. 6d. a bag but that the buyers will not take delivery until it is rebagged?—I confess it is a surprise to me. I saw Thorne on this matter and he would not talk business to me until the wheat was rebagged. I told him that we did not want it rebagged, and I also told him that we could back up our drays and shovel it in. 2563. You say that statement is incorrect?—I do. I pointed out that I stored 800 bags of f.a.q. wheat in the shed rather than put it in the Pool, because I could feed my pigs with it. 2564. You take exception to the officers of the Pool handing over the railing of this wheat to a private individual?—Yes. 2565. And you are of the opinion that he should have paid the co-operative society for the work done?—Yes, that is the removal of the stacks. 2566. The man who removed those stacks was a respectable citizen of Badjaling?—He has been there a number of years lumping wheat. He is a Quairading resident. 2567. Is he fully qualified to do the work?—Yes, so far as the lumping is concerned. 2568. The only thing to do, then, was to take the bags from the stack and put them into the trucks?—And anything in the way of sales of the damaged wheat. 2569. You believe in the middleman?—I believe in a responsible person in a case such as this, where the wheat belongs to those who delivered it. There should be some responsibility in connection with the handling of it. 2570. Even if it costs more?—No matter how respectable the man may appear to be, he has no stake there. He could get half way through the work and perhaps he could have sold a certain amount and pocketed the money and cleared out. Our position was that of a responsible body who were interested in the correct and proper disposal of that wheat. 2571. The position, then, is that the Scheme was fully aware of the quantity of wheat in that stack?—Undoubtedly. 2572. At the time it was quoted for, you knew there were 2,400 bags damaged?—At Badjaling. 2573. And at Quairading they also knew that a quantity in the stack was damaged?—Yes. 2574. The consequence is, then, that if the wheat did not turn out as expected, some person would be held responsible?—Where is the responsibility? The receiving agent has been paid his equity in it and his responsibility is finished. Then the lumper has been paid for lumping; he accepts no responsibility. 2575. If a stack was supposed to contain 20,000 bags and it turned out that there were only 19,000 bags, who would accept the responsibility?—I contend that there should be proper supervision to see that it is all there in the stack. 2576. With all the supervision in the world, if the total number of bags was not there, they could not be out there?—Those bags of wheat represent sovereigns to the farmers and you would not put an irresponsible lumper on to shovel sovereigns into a railway truck without supervision. 2577. Who handled the wheat at Quairading?—The co-operative company. 2578. Did they exercise sufficient supervision?—Yes. 2579. Was it necessary to send a man from Perth to put the stack in order?—After the stack was built instructions were given to load the wheat, and it was loaded. I would like you to know that that particular siding is most unfavourable for loading wheat. The loop that runs to the wheat stack will carry only seven trucks and you cannot move them. The lumper gets to work and he takes the wheat from wherever he can get at the truck. After the stack was well built and finished, we had instructions to load and the lumper was put on to load. He broke the stack down in a considerable number of places, and then instructions came along to roof the stack, and a man was sent up to do it. But that was all, When the man came up he only had to reconstruct the stack to a certain extent. 2580. The stacking of the wheat was done by the co-operative society?—Yes. 2581. They let it to the lumper and they supervised it?—Yes. 2582. And they supervised the work so keenly that the centre of the stack was very badly built?—We have had no complaints to that effect. It was exposed to the rain before instructions came to roof it. 2583. Was not the stack so bad that they had to put something round it to hold it together?—Not to my knowledge. 2584. Was it not a costly matter to have the stack properly squared up?—The Scheme allows so much per bag for the roofing, and when they paid the amount for roofing there was a surplus. That covered the whole of the reconstruction of the stack. 2585. What is the payment for roofing?—At per bag, but I do know that when the reconstruction of the stack was finished, and the roofing was done, there was a slight surplus. 2586. You take the stand that a respectable resident in the district should not have been given the handling or the loading in connection with this stack of wheat, and that the Scheme should have paid one-eighth of a penny more to enable the supervision to be done?—I contend that the eighth of a penny was perfectly justified, and there was no possibility of underhand work going on, whereas the other laid it down to this possibility. 2587. When you had the responsibility, according to the reports here, you did not take care to see that the lumpers, to whom you let the stacking, were building the stack properly throughout?—I am not prepared to accept that, for the reason that the state of that stack was caused by the breaking down of it into trucks, under instructions, and not to the building of it. 2588. Do you not think it is the duty of the officers of the Scheme to get the work done satisfactorily, and at the cheapest possible rate for the Scheme as a whole?—Providing it is done correctly, yes. 2589. There is no reason to think that this local man would not do it correctly?—Except that any business man would prefer a responsible firm to one of irresponsibility. 2590. You prefer a middleman?—I do not think we can safely do without him and in this instance the middleman would have been the wheat grower. 2591. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: If the local co-operative society had taken the contract to truck the wheat, what check would the Scheme have had as to the interest of the officers of the local society?—None beyond the fact that the local society has a direct interest in the wheat. 2592. Would not they have the same interest if a lumper were unloading it?—An individual might not. 2593. Might not the same be said of an officer of your company?—Certainly not, because a man who is working directly under a number of directors will do his work well. 2594. Are the directors always there?—They are very frequently there. 2595. Were they not there when the lumpers were there?—We had no authority to be there. 2596. By the CHAIRMAN: The State on behalf of myself and other citizens has given a guarantee in respect of this wheat; therefore I have an interest in the wheat: do you not admit that this lumper had an interest in the wheat as well?—I am afraid he had very little, seeing that the wheat is delivered to the Pool and no more than the value is paid out of the Pool, which is less the expenses of the Pool. As I understand it, nobody but the wheat grower pays the expenses of the Pool. 2597. There is no guarantee that that system will remain?—I trust that somebody else will take a share of the responsibility. 2598. You referred to the letter from the Wheat Scheme through Mr. Griffiths notifying that the wheat was to be disposed of locally. Was no other notification given to the residents?—With the exception of the telegram received by me from Dalgety's, notifying that their agent, Thorne, would be at Badjaling on much and such a date, and that if I was desirous of obtaining wheat I should interview him.