2671. You think that the Scheme, in paying the price they are paying for moving some of those stacks, are paying too low a rate?—I think that the price is cut very fine. 2672. How do you account for the fact that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., this year offered to do it for 1d., if 1½d. plus ten per cent. is too low a price?—In that case it would be cut even finer than at present, and it would be dangerously near the mark between profit and loss. 2673. If you are subletting the work, who is doing the cutting down, you or the Scheme?—I do not follow you. 2674. You said just now that the Scheme is paying too low a rate?—I said that the thing was cut down to a fine point, and that if it was cut further it be dangerously near the level which would prevent it from being a paying proposition. 2675. You are paying for the actual carrying out of the work 2s. less than you are receiving for it; who is responsible for cutting down the price to such a rate?—There was absolutely no influence on the lumpers or the contractors so far as we were concerned; they were asked to tender and they tendered. 2676. You had no complaints from the lumpers respecting the price in regard to either Darling's or Bell's stacks?—No direct complaint. 2677. Then why is it that the demand for an additional farthing should have been in respect of the Westralian stack. Does it not show that that stack was not built as well or so carefully looked after as the others?—No. The stack was the last of the old wheat left in the yard, which was proof that it was the best. But because it had been standing that length of time the contractors were afraid to tackle it in case of any possible damage that might have been done by mice. 2678. That claim was based merely on supposition?—That is all. 2679. And you say the contractors were justified on the same basis?—The difference would have been about £7 11s. 3d. on the whole stack, and in consequence I thought I was justified in recommending an additional farthing. 2680. Do you desire the Commission to believe that your company's stack, which appeared to be in thoroughly good condition, was worth a farthing more than the others which were not in such good condition?—When I spoke of the condition of the stack I was referring to the yard and was in good condition on the outside. What might come out of the interior was problematical. 2681. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Why did you recommend the increased rate for unloading that stack?—Simply because, seeing that it had been standing for so long the chances that it was bad inside were pretty strong. 2682. That was the only reason for thinking it worse than the others?—Yes. 2683. Are there many farmers in your district outside the local co-operative?—There are a good number who up to the present time have not joined. 2684. Approximately what percentage?—Anything over fifty per cent. 2685. Then you are about even inside and outside the co-op.?—Yes. 2686. Approximately what quantity of wheat is stacked yearly at Dumbleyung?—It varies considerably. 2687. During the last three years?—Somewhere about 30,000 to 40,000 bags per annum. 2688. Did Inspector Sabine and the Westralian Farmers' inspector disagree as to the work being done in any part of the district?—Those reports never came before me. Any adverse report that came from the Scheme was always submitted to me, and any recommendations the Westralian Farmers had to make were sent along. They did not say whether they were from any individual inspector or not. 2689. Did anyone complain as to Inspector Sabine being biassed?—Yes, I did. 2690. Would your co-op. be benefited if it got the same price as the Westralian farmers?—We would. 2691. Could your own co-op, act as direct agents for the Scheme without being under anybody else? Supposing a new scheme was adopted and you were asked to do the work?—It would be quite possible for us as a local company to accept it, but we would never think of doing so so long as we had a central organisation. We realise the benefit to be derived from co-operation on a larger scale. 2692. By Mr. HARRISON: Did you lose much at your centre in pick-up wheat?—It will ultimately prove to be a loss to the Scheme as it is difficult to obtain, but the loss occasioned by wet if it could be estimated might be great. To put it shortly, there has been a very great waste which might have been prevented if the stacks had been covered. 2693. At your own centre there was waste on account of wet and pick-up wheat?—There is no doubt about it. 2694. Would it have a higher value at Dumbleyung than elsewhere provided you had the customers?—I certainly think so. There is wheat which we send to the wharf at Fremantle which I am sure we could get a better price for locally. 2695. You realise as agent that if the amounts for re-bagging and freightage that you could realise equal if not a better price before those costs were incurred?—Yes. 2696. And if you got the customers?—We had men who required wheat locally, but we were notified by the Scheme that they could do better by railing the wheat to Fremantle. 2697. You think some system might be introduced so that the local demand might be met prior to transit?—Yes; the disposal of inferior wheat under the control of local agents; I think they would make a better deal. 2698. You think the local agents could better handle the thing than the central Scheme?—I think so, if they were allowed to exercise judgement as to the quality of wheat and were given an amount of latitude. 2699. If your 70 branches were able to dispose of the third quality wheat, would you not defeat your object in getting a higher value?—Much of the third quality would not pay to rail to Perth. There is a value that you can put on wheat that it would not pay to truck. Anything below that, if you had it under control you would be able to dispose of. 2700. You do not consider you would have local purchasers for all the third-rate pick-up wheat?—It all depends on the conditions that are going to prevail. If there is a mice plague, or something that will affect the stack, then the proportion of damaged wheat would be great, but the few bags usually left over I am certain could be disposed of locally. 2701. You realise the objective of the Scheme in putting it through one agent so as to maintain the maximum value?—Yes. 2702-2802. Have they succeeded?—I do not think so, so far as the first handling of wheat is concerned. There has been a reduction in cost, but the system that has prevailed of erecting stacks at different sidings and the delay in getting the stack shifted and the resultant loss, that has increased the cost. 2803. Have you suffered at Dumbleyung for want of covers to your trucks?—We have never sent a truck from Dumbleyung covered. 2804. And in rainy weather?—Yes. 2805. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Have you much wheat lying in your district now?—There is no wheat practically lying at the sidings. All has been cleaned up. The only thing is we cannot get the clearance. We have complained and advised that the wheat be railed away and we got the ridiculous letter as to the bags for paper making. 2806. Have you a ready market for the wheat locally?—Yes. 2807. By the CHAIRMAN: You are biassed against the inspector?—Not at all. 2808. You said to Mr. Harrison that you considered that if the local branches had a freer hand they could dispose of the wheat with better advantage to the Scheme than at present?—The wheat I referred to is very inferior. 2809. Who fixes the price? Do you desire to have a free hand in that?—At the present time, if an agent disposes of the sweepings he has to submit a sample to