2944. Do you believe in forcing the Farmers' Mercantile people to send their produce somewhere else and turn their profits into another channel?—It is not a question of forcing them , and I have already said that people should not be forced to do anything by an Act of Parliament. 2945. You do not believe in these people being forced by Act of Parliament to do anything . An Act of Parliament to-day compels these people to do a certain thing?—Only during war time. 2946. Do you think it should be amended to allow those people to handle their own produce so as to enable them to distribute any profits amongst themselves in the same manner as the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., are doing today?-The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., are doing it on a different basis altogether. The other people are a mercantile firm who are out to benefit their firm only. Those 1.100 farmers consider that they can make more money that way. 2947. Are they not justified in handling their own products ?—I suppose so. 2948. If they were members of your co-operative society and not the Farmers' Mercantile Union, any money they might make would be divided amongst them ?—yes. 2949. They do not consider they should be debarred from handling their own products because they are not members of your society. Do you believe they should be compelled to do so by Act of Parliament?—I say that we in our society have the majority of the farmers, and while the majority rules, they should abide by that majority rule. Our companies represent more farmers than they do or ever will. 2950. By Hon. J.F. ALLEN: Do you represent 50 per cent of the farmers of this State?—We represent 50 per cent in our own particular district. 2951. By the CHAIRMAN: You have told us that your wheat was bringing in very little more now than before the war. What were you getting for your wheat before the war? — Anything from 3s. 3d. to 3s. 6d., at siding. 2952. What did you receive for your 1915-16 wheat?—I do not know. 2953. By Hon. J.F. ALLEN: What has been advanced on it or paid?—I cannot tell you. All my proceeds go to the Industries Assistance Board and I never know what they do with them. They have not told me what they have received. 2954. Have you asked them?—Repeatedly, and they have not told me what has been passed to the credit of my account for the 1915-16 wheat. 2955. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you absolve the Scheme from blame so far as the finalising of the two agreements are concerned?—I am in ignorance as to who is at fault . 2956. You know that the wheat has not been sold?—From the announcements which have appeared in the papers, I thought it had been sold. 2957. Would you be surprised to know that there are stacks of 1915-16 wheat still in Victoria?—I would not be surprised at anything, but I did not know that. We were all under the impression that the wheat had been sold and paid for. 2958. I am afraid some people have been leading the farmers astray in that direction?—I am only repeating what I have seen in the papers. 2959. All the 1915-16 wheat has gone from Western Australia but not from the other States. You referred to the dissatisfaction in regard to dockages. I suppose you are aware that dockages were fixed at the request of the acquiring agents?—I am not aware of that, 2960. You also complained of not being able to get trucks and that when you did get any they were ordered to be used to take away the old wheat. Seeing that the old wheat was deteriorating, was it not in the interests of the Scheme that the old wheat should be sent first?—No. The old wheat may have been deteriorating, but not to the extent that the new wheat was deteriorating in the same period, because the old wheat was well protected while the new wheat was unprotected. 2961. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: That is, in your district? — I am speaking of all wheat I have any knowledge of. 2962. By the CHAIRMAN: You say you were notified that wheat would be railed as you received it; who sent that notification?—We were led to believe the trucks would be available as we received the wheat. We were restricted from providing dunnage for more than one-third of the wheat, and it was inferred that the balance would be railed away. 2963. Do you know of attempts being made to stack wheat in such a way as to claim the highest rate for the handling of it?—No. 2964. In n the moving of those two stacks, on which the men could not make a fair living, what were you paying them?—Originally they agreed to do it for three farthings. As soon as we discovered that the stack was in a bad condition we increased the price to one penny. 2965. So you really were paying them the whole of the amount you were receiving for the work, except for the one-eight penny for checking and weighing?—Yes, we were making nothing out of the handling. 2966 . The overhead expenses were a farthing and there was a commission of one farthing?—I cannot say. 2967. Were your stacks at Bruce Rock covered?—No. 2968. How long did they remain there?—Carting began early in January and the stack was railed about the end of May. There were no complaints about that stack. 2969. what were the quantities in the other stack?—At Eujinyn 9,000 bags, at Yalberan 6,000 bags at Jura 5,000 bags and at Narrambean 4,000 bags. I refer to the time we commenced to rail the stacks. 2970. Then they were all small stacks?—Comparatively yes. The stack at Narrambean cost us full remuneration to have it removed. That was occasioned by the delay resulting from giving rail precedence to an old stack some three miles away well roofed and protected by screens. In consequence, our stack had to stand in abeyance for about a month, during which time it was exposed to exceedingly heavy rain. 2971. By Mr. BROWN: How many bags high do you carry these small stacks?—About 18; they are nearly all carried to the same height for the purpose of roofing. 2972. Are definite instructions issued to make them that high?—No, but one is not to go beyond a certain height, which is, I think, 20 bags as a maximum. 2973. By Mr. HARRISON : Did you ever have instructions not to load any wheat direct from the wagon to the truck?—No. 2974. Did you have any instructions not to complete a truck?—No. 2975. If there were not sufficient wheat in the farmer's wagon you could complete the truck from a temporary stack?—Oh, no; if there were not sufficient wheat in the farmers' wagons to fill the truck, we were not allowed to touch the temporary stack; the truck had to stand till another load came in next day. 2976. Did that cause any demurrage on any trucks?—It must have necessitated a certain amount, but I would not say they were responsible for any particular demurrage or loss or delay in transit. 2977. Did it cause any loss on account of holding up any trucks?—Yes, undoubtedly. 2978. Who issued those instructions?—They came to the sub-agents through the Wetralian Farmers. 2979. Not direct from the Scheme?—No. The Scheme were controlling the handling of the wheat. 2980. Do you think the instructions were detrimental to the handling of the harvest during the press time?—Certainly. There were many days and occasions when as many as three or four trucks were standing at the siding partly loaded. Often one would be loading a truck, a train would come along and shunt that truck to some other part of the yard , and put other trucks in front of the shed. The balance of that partly loaded truck would have to wait until it came back again. Would it be an incentive to fraud to get the higher rate on the part of those issuing the instructions, I mean preventing the Scheme paying the higher rate?—No. 2981. You think all your agents were sufficiently honest in the farmers' interests to prevent that?—I cannot vouch for the agents being honest, but I say that under no scheme or business can you prevent a certain amount of dishonesty occurring. But the dishonesty would not be sufficient or should not be for such instructions to be issued. My experience has