THURSDAY, 18th JULY, 1918. (At Perth.)

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

BASIL LATHROP MURRAY, Managing Director, Westralian Farmers, Ltd., sworn and examined:

3031. By the CHAIRMAN : I believe you desire to make a statement to the Commission with regard to the handling of the Wheat Scheme since its inception?—I have not prepared a statement but there are many matters that I want to place before the Commission. One of the difficulties I am labouring under is that it has been rather difficult to see the evidence which has been given, and on which our work has been faulted. It is hard to gather from the rather scanty newspaper reports what has been said. Before I start my evidence, I would like to refer to what was said by Mr Brewis. I saw a copy of his evidence, which was sent to him for correction, and so far as I can gather Mr Brewis did not make himself clear. There is one point in which I think should be placed more fully in front of the Commission. You questioned him about a truck of wheat, the number of the truck being 9244. That was supposed to have been bad wheat, caused by faulty stacking by the co-operative company, as suggested during the cross-examination of the witness (Mr Brewis.) It was not made clear that the wheat which was in that truck was not this year's wheat at all. Secondly, it was not wheat which was stacked by the co-operative company, but it was a truckload of wheat from Darling's 1916-17 stack; and thirdly, you read to Mr Brewis two letters from the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., to the Scheme and you suggested to Mr Brewis that those letters did not deny the charges which the Scheme made regarding the bad wheat. I do not know whether it is that the file—as Government files in the past have been found to be—is not complete, but our letter of the 17th June was not read to Mr Brewis. In that letter we proved that the Scheme's complaint was groundless, inasmuch as the sale of the wheat referred to showed a clear profit of 3s. 6d. per bag. Our co-operative company is charged with having made a bad stack of this year's wheat, which caused that wheat to get into a serious condition. That in itself is not true because, as I have already told you, the wheat came from Darling's stack of 1916. The wheat was described in glowing terms by the Scheme as being only fit to be carted away and buried. Yet I may inform the Commission that this wheat came to Perth and was sold here. The Scheme declared that it was a wasteful act on the part of our people to sell it, because it would not fetch the price of bagging and handling; yet It was sold and after paying all costs it netted a profit to the Scheme of 3s. 6d. per bag. We claim that that is a complete refutation of the charge which was laid against the co-operative company at Dumbleyung. 3032. It was understood that it was not your stack. The complaint was that they sent the wheat to Perth for sale, 30 bags of which contained 80 per cent of dirt. We have not had the evidence yet but we have caused inquiries to be made at Mr Brewis' request, and we have been informed that that wheat realised a profit of 2s., so there could not have been 80 per cent. of dirt in it?—I noticed in the paper that Mr Hall, the secretary of the Scheme, said he would not give much evidence but would lay on the table the files of correspondence. I am prepared to show that at least in one instance the files are faulty. Past experience of departmental files does not inspire one with confidence, and I cannot allow my actions to be judged by what the department puts on the files. If the letter of the 17th June is not on the file, and was not shown to you, it is obvious that the file has been presented to you in such a condition as to suit the particular charges which have been made against us. 3033. The letter I read to Mr Brewis was dated 29th May?—We followed that up with the letter of the 17th June, 1918. On the 24th May, 1918, the Scheme wrote to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., as follows:— 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. Thirty bags contained 80 per cent. of earth, the balance being sweaty 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 all recurrence of trucking of worthless material. To that we replied in the letter which you read to Mr Brewis. The Scheme wrote again on the 15th June— The Scheme's letter to which you refer does not deal with the consignment of inferior wheat to Dalgety & Co., Perth, but is intended to point out to you the economic waste when re-bagging is so mishandled that railage and other charges are incurred on the 30 bags mentioned, which are not worth the freight, and consist of wet, mouldy and sweated wheat, together with a heavy percentage of the original stacking site. I complain first of all that the charge of the 24th May was a definite one relating to certain wheat from Dumbleyung. When we are able to refute some of this, the Scheme turn around and say, in effect, "Our letter did not refer to that particular wheat, but was a general homily on the handling of wheat." Our reply was as follows:— We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 15th, and have referred to ours of the 29th ult. and yours of the 24th, to which you allude in your favour. We note your advice that your letter of the 29th ultimo was intended to point out to us the economic waste. We also note in your favour under acknowledgement, and also in another letter of even date, your allegation of incompetence and lack of prompt supervision on our part. We have carefully inquired into the outturn of the truck mentioned by you, namely 9244. We note you contend the same contained 30 bags 80 per cent. being earth, and the balance of the consignment being sweaty and mouldy wheat, which were not worth the freight. We have to point out, however, that this truck was sold in two parcels, 229 bushels 50lbs. realising 2s. per bushel, and 81 bushels 44lbs., realising 1s. 1d. per bushel, and average of approximately 5s, 3d. per bag gross, and a clear net profit to the Scheme of 3s. 3d. to 3s. 6d. per bag. It would therefore appear, that as pointed out in our letter of the 29th ultimo, your accusations in this instance are without foundation. To this we got no reply. If that letter is not on your file, which has handed in by Mr Hall, it is a wicked unfairness, and only a sample of what has characterised the actions of the secretary of the