pointed out that we are paying 12s. 6d. per hundred for the work, which price we consider is sufficient. We are now getting a quotation for the removal of the Westralian Farmers , Ltd., Dumbleyung Stack, and would be obliged if you will inform us whether you are prepared to do this work for 12s. 6d per hundred. Yours faithfully, Signed, F. C. Keys. General Manager Wheat Marketing Scheme." On the same day (May 20th) we received your wire stating that Quinn had a tender in to remove the stack at 1½d. per bag. This appears to me to be an instance of the methods that are being adopted by Keys and his satellites to take the handling of the wheat of the State out of the hands of the farmers. I will at the first opportunity bring the matter before my directors, but meanwhile protest vigorously against such methods and trust you will do your utmost to see that the handling of the wheat at this siding does not go out of our hands. There is a formal telegram , which I have not read. After I had squared up everything and given the lumpers to understand that they would get fair treatment—and by this time stack was partly removed—they found that the stack was not actually in the condition they had anticipated. But they went on with the work, and agreed to carry it right through at the price at which they had commenced, 10s. 6d. per 100 bags. I sent this formal wire, "Accept three halfpence old stack. Trouble ended. Brewis." On evidence like that, I put the construction that Mr. Keys and his inspector were biassed against us, and that that had influenced them in dealing with the matter in the way they did. There is another matter to which I desire to refer. Some little time ago I made an application for the cleaning up of the stacks in the Dumbleyung yeard, and during the removal of the stacks, which were principally Bell's and Darling's stacks, Inspector Sabine came along and told me to be very careful and not destroy any old bags which might be over at the cleaning up of the stack. He did not say what they were wanted for, and I did not ask him. On cleaning up the sites I put the bags just somewhere where they could be loaded into trucks—an operation which, I believe, it was intended to carry out. I think the intention was to rail the bags to Perth for some purpose or other. Some three weeks ago Inspector Sabine, together with the Westralian Farmers' inspector, was in the Dumbleyung yard, and I drew attention to these old bags, which of course by this time were in quite a rotten state, having lain there right through the wet season. I said, "Look, is it not possible to deal with these bags? You can see what they are like. They are absolute rubbish. If you want them railed away, tell me, and I will get them railed away. On the other hand, if you want to destroy them, say so, and I will get them cleaned up." He said that he could not tell me anything definite, but that he would let me know in the course of a few days. I have up to the present time received nothing at all from Sabine to tell me what to do with them; but just the other day, since coming Perth, I had this letter handed to me, dated the 12th July:— Dear Sir, 1916-17 season. We are in receipt of a letter from the Wheat Scheme reading as follows:—"The Chief Traffic Manager states that he is unable to cancel lease of stacking site at Dumbleyung, as there are heaps of old bags and refuse from the stacks that have been railed to the mills lying about, and that the stationmaster was advised that your sub-agent stated he had been instructed by the Wheat Scheme to leave these until we forwarded him railing instructions to be trucked away for paper making." This refers to Messrs. James Bell & Co. and John Darling & Sons' sites. Yours faithfully, for the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., L. R. Macgregor. There is nothing very serious in a letter like that but it seems so childish that they should throw it back to anyone who is running a siding , that they should tell him that he has made a statement to the effect that such bags were to be trucked away for paper making. I was actually anxious to get the sidings cleaned up. While the three of us were together, Sabine admitted that the delay in getting the bags cleaned up was principally due to himself. 2627. You say that the inspectors are duplicated?—That is true at the present time. 2628. And that two inspectors are not required?—That is right. I believe one inspector, provided he is capable, should be able to do everything that is necessary. 2629. Seeing that that is so, and that the acquiring agents say they are there for the purpose of saving the farmer expense, why did not they stop their inspectors from going round?—Because, under the Scheme , we were up against opposition . We knew all the time that there was opposition . We knew all the time that there was opposition coming from these inspectors. It would have been impossible for them to work the system without having outside inspectors. At the present time we have two inspectors coming along, one representing the Government, with Mr. Keys at the head of it—and I claim Mr. Keys was very much against us—and the other representing the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. If the two departments had been in something like harmony, it would have been possible to run one inspector only; but the suspicion between the two interests was so great that it was impossible to work, at any rate this season, with one inspector only. Again, the Westralian Farmers' inspectors were already travelling the district with a view to attending to their ordinary business . The two of them would work in together. 2630. You claim that the Westralian Farmers have had full power to appoint their own inspectors to see whether the work was carried out properly?—I claim they should have that power. 2631. And you claim that the Pool, which is guaranteed by the Government to provide several millions of money, should not look after their interests at all by appointing inspectors, but leave the whole thing entirely to the men doing the work?—That I do not say in any way; but the ordinary inspectors, who were making inspections regularly, were entirely unnecessary and were much more than a mere checking of any work done by the Westralian Farmers' inspectors. 2632. Have you, in all your life, ever come across a man doing work who did not think the inspector could be done without, the inspector who was to see that the man kept his work up to standard?—I do not say that one, or perhaps two, inspectors at the sidings, after the work is finalised, are not necessary; but in any case that would not be a very great cost. 2633. You claim that Mr. Sabine has got something against you at Dumbleyung?—Yes. I think that, being a representative of a firm formerly in opposition to the Westralian Farmers Ltd., he is biassed. 2634. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: What firm was he with before?—Darling & Son, I think; but I am not positive. 2635. Then you are not sure that he was with an opposition firm?—Yes; I am absolutely positive as to that. The firm may have been Bell & Co. 2636. By the CHAIRMAN: You advanced the supposition that Mr. Sabine is working detrimentally to you, or, as you said, is biassed against you, and you have brought as proof certain communications which have taken place between you and the Westralian Farmers Ltd. I suppose you are aware that the office of the Scheme is not connected with the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., office; that the manager of the Scheme is not the manager of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—That is quite true. I maintain that they are opposed to each other in a certain sense, seeing that through the Press Mr. Keys has already admitted his intention of going beck to his former employers. 2637. When ?—After the Wheat Scheme is ended. 2638. He must go and live somewhere. How long does it take to load 100 bags of wheat from the stack to the truck?—That all depends on the lumper. You get a good man, and then you get a man who is not quick at his work. But I have known two men who are working up there at the present time to shift 1,000 bags a day. That is for two men. Of course it is an exceptionally good day's work. 2639. Your firm are getting £1 per day profit out of the labour of those men?—How do you mean ? 2640. You are getting 12s. 6d. and are paying those men 10s. 6d. per 100?—That is a very excep