rear a family in the trucks, and that could not be done inside 24 hours. 2843. Is demurrage charged on those particular trucks ?—Any charge would only be against the Railways themselves. I understand there was a little demurrage charged during the strike against the Scheme at the Narrogin depot. But I can only tell you that from hearsay. I was charged demurrage on three trucks of sleepers sent to Dudinin for dunnage, but that was an unjust charge because the Scheme sent the sleepers there and never advised me. 2844. You mentioned about bags, is it a fact that the acquiring agents have to supply bags for re-bagging ?—I am instructed that the Wheat Scheme has to supply those, not the agent. 2845. It is not the same this year as in former years ?—No. 2846. You think then that the Scheme was at fault in not getting the bags for you as you required them ?—Certainly. 2847. By Mr. BROWN : Approximately how many bags do you handle at the seven sidings ?—Close on 80,000. 2848. By the CHAIRMAN : What do you pay the lumpers?—A penny into stack and three-farthings out of stack and out of trucks. 2849. Was there not some dispute at Kondinin because you wanted to reduce the price to three-farthings ?—No. I do not know how that rumour got about. Kondinin was an unsatisfactory siding. We employed a man there who tendered for the work; we accepted his price at those figures and he was instructed to rail his wheat, but he never did it. He railed some and used to supply me with figures of his truckings, etc., and on those figures I advised the acquiring agents of what had been trucked, and they immediately advised me that my figures were all wrong. I therefore wrote to this man and asked him for a statement, and the reply I got was not to take any notice of his figures and that the scheme's figures would probably be the correct ones. he was rather unsatisfactory. I was always in telephone communication with him, and at last he said he could not do any better, and I told him that we would send another gang along. We did so. They went on at the same rate. This fellow had built his stacks all over the place because the country yards are rather small, and the two old stacks remaining at Kondinin took up the whole of the yard that was available, and this man had to build his stacks awkwardly. He built one right against one of the 1916-17 stacks and the mice got out of the stack into the new one and cut it to pieces. We had to re-bag about 1,762 bags on account of the mice, and there were many others which required a stitch or a little patch here or there. I went there to see how the work was progressing and I was told that, owing to the quantity of wheat that had to be re-bagged, they could not make wages at it, and that as they had not had the advantage of receiving the wheat, they were not going to carry on the work. I told them to go ahead and I would see the directors and that I thought I could get them more money. We gave them 16s. for those, and for the other bags all though the stack we gave them a penny. 2850. Then the statement that you tried to get wheat loaded at ¾d. and that the lumpers refused was not true ?—No, the statement is untrue. 2851. Did you have much complaint in regard to getting trucks at the latter end of the season ?—Not in the last week or so. The excuse the Railways made was that unless they supplied the head of the railway, the train they had stationed there would be idle. Until the wheat was cleared from the head of the line we could not get trucks. 2852. But it was reported that the Railway Department took away an engine because you could not find work enough to keep it going ?—If they did that it was entirely without justification. When I complained that I could not get trucks the Westralian Farmers wired me to the effect that the Scheme complained that they could not get wheat from my line, and that engine and trucks were lying idle. I replied that it was a lie, and I challenged the Railway Department to produce the running books for our line. 2853. You realise that it is impossible for the Railway Department to provide trucks for all the sidings at once ?—Yes. In future it would be to the advantage of all concerned to have a system of stacking sidings. 2854. The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., acquired Mr. Hedges' wheat in the same way as they acquired everybody else's wheat, and consequently the trucks sent out there were sent out for the Westralian Farmers and not for Mr. Hedges?—That is so. I have nothing against Mr. Hedges. 2855. You spoke of the inspector sending in a report about the trucks. You are aware that it is the duty of the inspector to report on every siding ?—Yes. 2856. In so reporting he was merely carrying out his duty ?—Yes, but his report was rather unfair. It gave the impression that we were getting trucks and not using them. 2857. Personally I have come to the conclusion that either the Westralian Farmers or the Railway Department were telling lies ?—That is the very impression Mr. Gillespie said he had. 2858. You think the Scheme did everything it could to assist in getting trucks ?—Yes. 2859. How much wheat had you at Kondinin ?—Some 18,000 bags. 2860. Such a stack would warrant a roof ?—Yes. 2861. About what time did you first start stacking ?—About 10th January. 2862. It was anticipated that you would have 20,000 bags ?—Yes, but a good many people who had previously carted to Kondinin carted into Benderring, where they had wheat for the first time. 2863. Who picked out the stacking site ?—Our man at Kondinin. 2864. What was his reason for putting the stacks so close to that of Dreyfus & Co., which contained weevil ?—It was the only available site, and it was not until later it became known that there weevils in Dreyfus' stack. 2865. At first the work of stacking went on very satisfactorily; later on the stacking turned out to be very unsatisfactory. What was the cause of that ?—Towards the close the old fellow who had the contract found that he could not afford to employ further labour, so, putting the men off, he set about finishing the work himself, and as he was too old to climb about the stack, the work was not so well done. 2866. It was the duty of the co-operative society to see that the stacking was well done ?—Yes. I do not think any of the stacking was so carefully done this year as in the past, because we were definitely assured that the whole thing was to be cleared up by the end of April. 2867. Who is responsible in the case of damage through bad stacking ?—The sub-agent. 2868. At about what date was that stack at Kondinin fit for a roof ?—I cannot say. 2869. Had it been standing long ready for a roof ?—I cannot say that. 2870. I want, if possible, to place the neglect on the responsible person ?—At about the end of May Inspector Sabine said the stack was then fit for roofing, except that it was not quite high enough. He said that he would recommend that it be roofed. 2871. That was early in May ?—At all events they decided not to roof it. I remember that on four stacks in the district only 18 bags were used for re-bagging, and of those nine were occasioned by the village fowls getting to the stacks. That is pretty fair evidence that the wheat was in good condition at that time. 2872. By Mr. BROWN : It appears that in one instance the result of sub-letting to lumpers was detrimental to the Scheme ?—It was detrimental, not to the Scheme, but to us. We suffered the loss. 2873. Do you think that in the future stacking it would be better to prevent sub-letting ?—No; I am opposed to anything but contract work. 2874. By Mr. HARRISON : Did the liability of the acquiring agents cease on the 30th April ?—I cannot say. 2875. Did you have a visit of inspectors on the 30th April to assess the amount of liability of the acquiring agents ?—I had inspections about that time, but for what purpose I cannot say.