tional case. There are men who consider that 100 bags is sufficient for any man to lump in the course of a day. 2641. Let us take 100 bags. You are making 2s. profit out of the man's labour in loading a truck?—Yes. 2642. Merely because you are a middleman between the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., and the men doing the work?—We claim that the commissions which are at present payable on any wheat that is removed from the siding is equitable. 2643. Are you aware of the fact that not only are you getting 2s. per 100 bags, but that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., are getting 10 per cent. additional?—I am quite aware of that, and I am also aware that the commission is less this year than in any previous year. 2644. That is questionable. Previously 1½d. was paid for loading?—So far from the commissions being excessive, I claim they are reasonable. When contracts are let to men who have no capital, the men practically require to be paid as soon as the work is done, or, if not then, at any rate as early as possible. 2645. As a matter of fact your society made a profit of £18 to £20 over the handling of those old stacks of Darling's and Bell's at Dumbleyung last year, which never cost you a shilling?—After the men do their work they have not the capital to carry them over, and naturally they want to be paid as soon as the work is done. This is one of the things we have had to do, pay the men, and up to the present we have not been cleared up for a single stack from the Scheme. 2646. Is that not proof that the Scheme is wasting money by not doing it direct, seeing that they paid you £18, and paid the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., ten per cent., or nearly £30 in handling of the Scheme. Would they not have saved money if they had employed the men themselves?—That brings in the question of handling the wheat by a Government department. That method, I hope, will not come about. I would not be prepared to support it in any way. 2647. You would be foolish if you did. We do not anticipate that you would be prepared to support it for a moment?—I am speaking as a farmer as well as the manager of a company when I make a statement like that. 2648. Then the reason for Mr. Keys' bias, in your opinion, is in connection with the price of this stack?—That is one direct instance where I had something to prove in writing; the other was a surmise. 2649. You can go back and say that so far as that is concerned the offer was made in writing. Mr. Sabine was carrying out his instructions?—Why was not that handed to me? 2650. Because the Scheme is not dealing with you; it is dealing with the Westralian Farmers. Ltd.?—As representative of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., it would have been straightforward if I had been made aware of the correspondence that had taken place. 2651. You asked for 1¾d. when they could get it done for 1½d.?—So far as that is concerned the additional farthing would have gone to the lumpers; we were simply battling for the lumpers. 2652. You were only paying 1¼d. and you wanted 1¾d. You are of opinion, then, that it is necessary there should be some body or some person responsible at the sidings; some body like the co-operative society?—I think so. 2653. And you claim that the co-operative society doing the work they would look after the business in a proper manner?—I think so. 2654. Were you there when they stacked the wheat of this year?—I was at Dumbleyung during the whole of the wheat receiving season. 2655. Were you in charge of the stacking?—I was not actually in charge of stacking the bags. For part of the season I was. When I first went there I joined the late manager of the Dumbleyung company, Mr. Newman, and acted as his colleague for some time, and after he left I took over management of the company. 2656. You are the second manager there this year?—We were working together for a part of the season. 2657. You are the second manager this year?—That would be true. 2658. Were you responsible, as manager of company and overseer, for the stack built at Dumbleyung this year?—Had there been any loss accruing from the work I would have been responsible. 2659. You put up a dump instead of a stack?—That is untrue inasmuch as we did not have a fall in the stack during the whole time it was there. 2660. It was not there very long?—No. 2661. Was it not necessary to truck it on account of the bad state of the stacking?—No. It was decided to clear that line as quickly as possible seeing that it was a branch line. 2662. There is a letter on the file in which the Westralian Farmers' attention is drawn to the stack at Dumbleyung. It is from the general manager of the Wheat scheme and is dated the 24th May, and reads— I have to advise your company of the very unsatisfactory state of affairs in connection with certain wheat trucked on its behalf at Dumbleyung, for auction at Perth. In truck No. 9244, 30 bags contained 80 per cent. of earth, the balance being sweating and mouldy wheat, which was not worth the freight. The man who loaded this wheat at Dumbleyung certainly does not understand anything about the business. I have to ask that you will take steps to prevent a recurrence of this trucking of worthless material. ?—That is absolutely untrue, and so far as that truck is concerned the number can be got, and providing that the price obtained for that wheat bears out the statement, I am prepared to accept full responsibility. 2663.You contend that that letter bears out your statement that the inspectors are biassed?—Yes. 2664. Is it not more likely to be the Government officials, because the inspector whom you claim is biassed has nothing to do with it? The Pool officials are protecting the interests of the Scheme against the agents of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—Not by making false statements. 2665. That has to be proved?—I am prepared to go on the price accepted for that truck. So far as the quantity of wheat is concerned, the weather has been very bad during the trucking season. No sheets were provided for the protection of the wheat 2666. I may inform you that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., do not say that the letter was incorrect?—I am quite willing to go on the facts, and to ask you if you have information to tell me the price that was obtained. 2667. I have not that information here. This is the letter which was written by Mr. McGregor of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., on the 29th May:— We have to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 24th inst., re inferior wheat ex Dumbleyung. We have to advise that we have from time to time submitted samples of inferior wheat, including sweeping mixed with earth, to Messrs. Dalgety & Co., but the price put on sweepings mixed with earth has been such as to preclude any possibility of the wheat being sold at sidings. Our agent has apparently been faced with the alternative of letting the wheat rot at the siding or getting Dalgety's price for same. Being unable to do the latter, he has naturally assumed that the best course for him to take was to consign the wheat to Dalgety & Co., at Perth. We consider that the reflection you pass in your communication upon our agents is, in the circumstances, not justified. No agent could possibly find it profitable to load up cornsacks with 80 per cent. of earth at the remuneration of 1½ per bag. You see that there is no denial in that letter?—It is tantamount to a denial. 2668. Do you not think that when a definite statement of that kind has been made, showing the number of the truck, The Westralian Farmers would immediately send an officer to inspect and find out whether it was so?—They may have done so. 2669. Then should they not have given the matter a definite denial?—I claim that it is a definite denial, although it may not be in so many words. 2670. Your idea is that you want the Commission to look into the matter because you consider the officials running the Scheme are biassed against you at Dumbleyung?—Yes.