Wheat (1) - Part 2

Image 132
image 33 of 100

This transcription is complete

WEDNESDAY, 17th JULY, 1918. ( At Perth.)

Present: Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A ( Chairman). Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C., S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A., Hon. R. G. Ardagh, M.L.C., T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

VIVIAN ROBERT JEFFREY, further examined:

3011. By the CHAIRMAN: Jetarning is under your jurisdiction?— Yes. 3012. We have received a letter from that district this morning about which I wish to ask you some questions. What method did you adopt in weighing the wheat at Jetarning?— It was all weighed in single bags over the scales. 3013. Did you mark the bags a pound heavier than what the scales showed?— A few bags we did. 3014. What was the reason for that?— The bags will go, roughly speaking, anything from 180lbs. to 200lbs. and often you get bags over 200lbs. Our instructions are not to receive bags weighing over 200Ibs. The practice with the country people has been that if a bag went 205lbs. to mark it 199; that gives a credit to the farmer of 6lbs. The next bag might weigh 80lbs. and the bag would be marked 80lbs., but in the tally sheet it would marked 86lbs. It was not for some little time, until I found this out, and that the men had been doing this. I found the man had been giving credit to the farmers and the weights on the bags would not correspond. We went through his bags and found so many marked 200lbs. and we estimated that those bags would go say about 4lbs. on an average more than was really shown, so that the weights on the bags and on the sheet did not correspond. I then instructed the man, I think it was in connection with 400 bags, to mark 11lb heavier on the bags than the weight really went, so as to balance the books, so that we came near a balance. 3015. Are you aware that the commonwealth regulations provide that none of the bags are to weigh 200lbs?— I am aware of that and I instructed my man to that effect, I told him that he was liable in accepting bags over that weight, and my definite instructions were that when a bag weighed over 200lbs. he was to make the farmer, at his own cost and expense, bleed that bag down to 200lbs. Instead of doing that I found the lumper had put 200lbs, on the bag although the bag weighed 205lbs. 3016. You are, therefore, not actually aware of the weight you received at Jetarning but you gave an average? — We estimated we were about 400lbs. out. A bag weighing 205lbs. was marked 200lbs. The man was giving the farmer credit for the full weight he delivered. 3017. The farmer got no payment only for the weight delivered? — That is all. 3018. One bag that was light, by making it heavier would equalise the weight in the heavier bags? — For illustration, one bag would go 205lbs. The farmer would get only 200lbs. shown on his docket. The next bag might weigh 190lbs. and 190lbs. would be marked on the bag; that is the correct weight, but the farmer would get 195lbs. — 5lbs. credit from the last bag. In my truckings out of that stack I would say I estimated that about 400lbs. would make the weighing all right. 3019. That was not the weight marked on the bag? — No, not on the particular bag. When I found they were doing that, I asked the lumper, "When you tally the weight out of the stack how will you show the quantity of wheat?" He had marked the bag 190lbs. and given the farmer credit for 195lbs. That would show that I had a shortage 5lbs. of wheat on the two bags, whereas really I did not. To make up that discrepancy on 400 bags we added 1lb. extra on each bag. The system I adopted throughout my agency was to allow the farmer to weigh his own wheat, and the lumper looks at the scale to see that the rod is up. If the farmer has robbed himself of three or four pounds, that is his own fault. If the bar is down the lumper would shove the weight along. 3020. So that there can be no complaint on the part of the farmer? — No. 3021. He got no extra allowance for his wheat because of the 1lb. heavier? — Absolutely none. Say he delivered 50 bags, the particular cart note would show 50lbs. added to the weight on the bags. 3022. By Mr BROWN: Did that refer only to Jetarning? — Yes. 3023. Not to any other siding? No. 3024. By Mr HARRISON: How much was received at that siding? — Between 15,000 and 16,000 bags. 3025. Who was the man receiving at the siding? — Rex Brunton. 3026. By Mr BROWN: You said you allowed the farmer to weigh his own wheat and the lumper checked it. Was that the only check the farmer had in regard to the weights? — Yes. 3027. As long as Brunton and he were satisfied, the Scheme was satisfied? — Brunton had to be accurate; he was responsible to us for the out-turn of his stack, and, if he had given each man a couple or three bags extra at the end of the season he would have to pay us for the extra bags. 3028. Your instructions were to add 1lb. to each of the extra bags, but there was nothing to prevent Brunton putting 2 or 3lbs. on? — His honesty to us would prevent him from doing that. It was really to protect him that I had arranged that. It was understood that the extra pound was to be only on 400 bags. Our co-operative company have directors at each of these sidings but at Jetarning we have two, Price and Ledwith, and they keep me informed of anything that is going on. 3029. By Mr HARRISON: You would not be able to manage with one man at that siding unless you had the co-operation of the farmers? — The farmer is a peculiar individual —— 3030. I understand you had only one man there? — It was Brunton who let the contract. He employed his own men. There were practically two men there.

( The witness retired.)

The Commission Adjourned.