tive movement, and if in certain zones our local co-operative companies had been denied the right to handle their members' own stuff, it would have been a death blow to that scheme of organisation. At that meeting I told the merchants that I would be perfectly prepared to discuss any details of the matter of the whole of the following year's work, but that I would not agree to the zone system. That meeting carried only one resolution, which was that the Government should be asked to supply definite particulars of their intentions and requirements. 3087. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: What was the date of that meeting?—It would be some time prior to the 23rd August. I left the room expecting undoubtedly that when the Government gave us their definite particulars in writing we would be called together again to discuss the matter further. I heard no more until this letter of the 23rd August came from the Scheme. 3088. By the CHAIRMAN: You stated that Mr. Sibbald had made it known to some of the agents that the intention of the Government was to adopt the zone system. But there was a letter written to all the experts on the 3rd August. I have here a copy of that letter written to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. It says— I have also been instructed to advise that as a result of the conference in Melbourne it has been suggested that the agents should be restricted to only one sub-agent at a siding, or group of sidings. The Minister, however, supported by the local advisory committee, was favourable to the proposal of dividing the wheat handling business of the State into port zone districts, and it was tentatively proposed that if the present agents agreed, allotments would be made as under. ?—Curiously enough, I cannot find that letter on our files. But the letter was read at that meeting of merchants. 3089. By Mr. HARRISON: Your company were in conjunction with Dreyfus & Co. for the Fremantle zone?—Yes. 3090. Your company replied to the letter through Mr. Taylor, so that you must have had it?—Yes. I expect what happened is that I took the letter along to that meeting and left it there. Therefore, that communication was by letter from Mr. Sibbald to the merchants, and not verbally. However, that cuts no ice. When we got the letter on the 23rd August, I had been expecting to be called to a further meeting of merchants; but the Wheat Scheme themselves urged us by telephone to hurry on our quotation; and they told us that they had received the quotations of the other merchants and were dealing with them separately. That was the first indication ever I had that we were to be ostracised by the merchants and the Scheme. 3091. By the CHAIRMAN: On the very day that Mr. Sibbald asked you to quote, did not you arrange with Mr. Baxter to grant you an interview?—Immediately we saw by that first letter that the zone system had been determined upon, or agreed upon, by the Government, we had tried to get an interview with Mr. Baxter. I shall refer to that interview quite freely. 3092. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: That was after the 3rd?—Yes. We arranged to see Mr. Baxter and appeal against the decision. I think we also saw the advisory board. 3093. By the CHAIRMAN: But after the last letter of the 23rd August, you wrote to Mr. Baxter and asked for an interview, which was granted on the 27th, the very same day for which Mr. Sibbald requested your quotation?—On the 27th we interviewed Mr. Baxter. 3094. On the very day you were to quote Mr. Sibbald you were to interview Mr Baxter?—Yes. 3095. Did that interview ever take place?—Yes. I think Sibbald, Baxter, and Hall were there; and one other representing the Government. 3096. By Mr. HARRISON: Was Mr. Field present? —No. I think Mr. Sutton was there. 3097. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you think Mr. Hall was there?—Hall was definitely present, and Baxter and Sibbald were there. 3098. It is not an interview that would be likely to be forgotten?—I cannot understand the possibility of anybody forgetting it. 3099. If we were told that, in all probability that interview never took place——?—You would be told something which would intensely astonish me. 3100. A person present at that interview could not forget it?—No. It was hot. It was not an interview that anybody could forget. 3101. Our evidence so far is that there is no recollection of the interview taking place?—When we got this letter of the 23rd, we took alarm, and we pushed for an interview, which would be about the 27th. I have a sort of idea that there was someone else present at that interview, someone whom I took along with me. 3102. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Would you have no record of that interview?—I do not think so. Mr. Baxter and Mr. Sibbald were present at that interview, and there is not any possibility of either of them forgetting about it or of us forgetting about it. 3103. By the CHAIRMAN: In the first place we were told that the interview might not have taken place, because many interviews were asked for and not granted. We are also told that if it had taken place there is no record of the interview on the files. Another witness states that he is of opinion that the interview took place because Mr. Taylor was seen outside the Minister's door on that day?—I distinctly recollect three of us going into that room. 3104. By Mr. HARRISON: Might the third have been Mr. Mather?—Possibly. 3105. By the CHAIRMAN: You being present at that interview, and knowing what took place there, if you made a statement to the Commission that that interview might not have taken place because many interviews were asked for and not always granted, would not that be misleading the Commission?—It would be a matter so astounding that I cannot believe that any such statement was ever made by anyone who knew the position. When the discussion was proceeding in Parliament, I was at Bridgetown, and when I read the "Hansard" report of the Government's scheme, what puzzled me about the whole thing was this. I have not the slightest idea whether Mr. Baxter or any other member of the Government was or was not favourable to the zone system at any time, but it was stated in the letter from Mr. Sibbald that the zone scheme was suggested with the approval of the Minister, and at the interview we had with the Minister, with Mr. Sibbald present, we showed the Minister how unfairly the zone system would operate on our co-operative movement, and after a long discussion the Minister agreed that the scheme was not fair to us and that he would not agree to it. When I read to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Sibbald this letter which we had got, I said we wanted to protest against it, and I went through it, dealing of course with those conditions regarding the zone system. I characterised several of those conditions as being wrong, and Mr. Sibbald admitted that those conditions which he had set out were not his conditions at all, but had been suggested in a letter to the Scheme by our competing merchant firms. We never got in writing from the Scheme for a very long time any change in those conditions. But from that time on to the 19th September, we were merely urged by telephone to hurry up with our quotation, and various passes were going on between us and the Minister. We were urged to quote, and on the 19th September we wrote a letter, the first part of which deals with bulk handling, while the second part is as follows:— We are prepared to act as agents for the State Wheat Marketing Scheme, and to undertake complete organisation of next season's arrangements, including the handling at sidings either in bulk or bags, and stacking at depots; checking, weighing, and sampling at sidings and/or depots; the keeping of all records and issuing of all documents; the care of all wheat in depots; the delivery of same to mills or on board; and the shipping, including any duties that cannot ordinarily be foreseen or provided for in an ordinary agreement; the whole work at a small net profit above cost (flat rate) of say, three-eighths of a penny per bushel. 3106. By Mr. BROWN: That was the amount of profit you asked?—It would include our overhead expenses. It is a very great pity they did not accept it. We would have accepted all responsibility and