2599. And that reply by Thorne was correct?—I urged him, as proved by my further telegram to Griffiths. The date of Thorne's arrival to discuss the matter was when he decided to recommend the reconditioning of it, which called forth my telegram to Griffiths, protesting against such re-conditioning. Thorne's report was dated before Griffith's letter. 2600. By Mr. BROWN: Was this lumper previously an employee of Dreyfus & Co.?—Yes. 2601. And when you were negotiating in Perth for one-eighth penny per bag more, was he the person outside waiting for the reply?—No; he was the man whose quote I was working on. He was our lumper this season, and he was still quoting for us, and we were prepared to go on with it. 2602. Does he employ others to work with him?—Yes, three or four casual labourers. 2603. Do you know of any wheat sold by this lumper during the railing of those stacks?—No. I believe there has been some, but I do not know anything about it. 2604. Do you think Mr. Keys would be able to give us some information on the point?—I suppose he would get his information from Dalgety's. 2605. By the CHAIRMAN: Hatch purchased approximately 2,400 bags, so there could not have been any of the damaged portion sold?—You were dealing with the Quairading stack just now. 2606. The letter I read to you just now was sent after your wire, not before?—Thorne's report called forth that letter. It is possible that Thorne's report may have been of even date with my wire to Griffiths. 2607. Your wire is dated 28th November, and the letter was sent to the Wheat Scheme on the 10th December?—Yes. 2608. And the disposal of the wheat was approved on the 27th November?—Yes. Previous to that the Minister, on the eve of his departure to Melbourne, published the statement that we could buy damaged wheat from Dalgety's. From that date till the date when it was sold to Hatch, we were trying to get it. 2609. The wheat was in very bad condition?—At the finish, yes. 2610. It was so in December?—Yes. 2611. It has been said that there were about two tiers of rotten, stinking wheat?—It certainly smelt pretty strong. 2612. So you do not infer that Hatch got it at too low a price?—Yes, I do; it was ridiculously low. That wheat would have served me for a year's supply; in lien of it I had to retain 800 bags of f.a.q. 2613. If the wheat was sold locally the railage would not have to be borne. In respect of this wheat, Hatch had to pay railage?—Yes. 2614. So the cost was not borne by the Scheme?—No, but the cost of railage has to be borne by the consumer of that wheat, and if it is worth a certain price in Perth it is worth only a trifle less to us up there, and naturally we should be in a position to pay a somewhat higher price for it. 2615. Boiled down, your request is that the whole of the management of the wheat in that district should be put under your co-operative society?—Certainly, that is my strong conviction; it would then be handled to the advantage of the farmer. 2616. You can only speak for your own district?—I base my surmise on the fact that when a man is interested in the wheat he is interested also in the handling of it. 2617. Do you not think that a good deal of that theory is based upon the sentiment which is talked to some farmers?—The proof is that what profit they have made by the handling is their own. 2618. You have no showing of a profit this year yet?—Even if there is no profit in the handling of it they will know that in the price received for the wheat the grower had received full value and others had not profited from their work. 2619. You do not think that the handling should be controlled by a semi-Government department paid by the Pool?—It hurts, because we are paying them and yet we have no say in the matter of how they shall handle it. 2620. Do you not think they handle it properly?—No. 2621. Can you give any instances where they have not done so?—Not definite instances, it is in their administration of the damaged wheat only on which I came to give evidence. 2622. They thought they could get a better price by selling it other than locally. Do you not think they are considering the interests of the Scheme in doing so?—No. 2623. Do you think there is anyone at the present time in Western Australia who has far better qualifications in regard to wheat than the present manager of the Wheat Scheme?—I do not think I am competent to judge. 2624. Are you competent to judge whether any decision he may arrive at is not beneficial to the Scheme?—I certainly think on the particular point I brought before you he did not judge in the best interests of the Scheme and those whose interests the Scheme represents. 2625. Our aim is to get at the foundation of anything, putting sentiment on one side, that has been done detrimental to the Scheme?—I am not prepared to put anything before you except what I have done. (The witness retired.)

EDWARD BREWIS, Manager of the Dumbleyung Farmers' Co-operative Company, sworn and examined:

2626. By the CHAIRMAN: I believe you wish to make a statement in regard to the working of the Wheat Scheme?—The particular point I wish to stress is that of the duplication of the inspectors under the Wheat Scheme. In quite a few instances I have seen inspectors travelling together; one, the representative of the Westralian Farmers and the other an inspector of the Wheat Scheme, inspecting similar stacks. That I say is one argument against the cost of handling the wheat, inasmuch as it is doing the same work twice over. Another statement I wish to make, and which I hope to be able to prove by the correspondence I have here, is that of bias on the part of the inspector appointed by the Government. The particular inspector in our district is Mr. Sabine, and this instance to which I wish to confine my remarks is as follows—I have had suspicion that Mr. Sabine has had bias, but I had no proof until this particular instance came under my notice. We had cleared up all the stacks in the Dumbleyung yard with the exception of one which was erected by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., and contained wheat for the 1916-17 season. The lumpers up to this point had been paid at the rate of 10s. 6d. per 100 bags, or roughly 1¼d. per bag. When it came to the removal of the Westralian Farmers' stack the lumpers came to me and asked me to increase the rate. I asked them on what basis they wanted the advance and they said, "The stack has been standing longer than any in the yard and it is likely there is weevil in the stack, and mice are certainly in it, and our opinion is that it will break down worse than any of the other stacks." I thought there was justice in what they said. I knew the breaking down of the stack was to a large extent one of surmise, but I thought it was reasonable on their part to suppose the stack would break down worse than the others. On the 17th May, I wrote on their behalf to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., as follows:— Re wheat handling Dumbleyung. There is only one remaining stack of 1916-17 wheat as Dumbleyung, that erected by Westralian Farmers. The lumpers are not satisfied with the present rate, namely, 1¼d., as the stack is in a rather bad condition. The mice and weevil have been in the stack and no curtains have been around the bags, although Inspector Sabine has been notified from time to time to that effect. Seeing that the lumpers are receiving the same rate for removing the new wheat as that proposed to be paid for the old, surely the additional farthing can in no way be said to be excessive. However, they have decided to leave the stack unless the farthing is allowed, and I trust you will do your utmost to grant the amount which I certainly think is justified, thus enabling us to get the stack removed early, also to prevent a local labour trouble. Thanking you in anticipation. As there was a special train running out from Wagin supplying empties to the various sidings which were loading at the time. I did not want to hang up the traffic, and I got the lumpers into the office. We talked the matter over. I said, "You continue on the work. You know me sufficiently well to understand that I will deal straightforwardly with you,