3207. By Mr. HARRISON: It is a good proposition to get the maximum quantity of wheat moved at the minimum expense?—Undoubtedly.

3208. And that is what would have prevailed if you could have used those trucks and got them away?—Undoubtedly. And the Scheme should have provided for quick trucking from some centres for no trucking at all from others. Here is a letter from the Korrijin agent in which he says that the contractors are leaving unless the regulation is altered. He adds that trucks are available but no wheat is coming in, and that in consequence there has been no activity for three days. I could quote many such communications. Curiously enough what saved the position was that just when our men were prepared to toss it up the strike occurred at Spencer's Brook.

3209. By the CHAIRMAN: On account of the regulation?—I say so. I am sure so; and directly that strike occurred all arrangements were upset and we started to stack.

3210. By Mr. HARRISON: If it were said that this regulation originated with your firm would it be correct?—It would be childish to suggest such a thing.

3211. By the CHAIRMAN: You have never heard of the suggestion?—No.

3212. This morning you raised the question as to whether we had a letter from the Fremantle Harbour Trust in regard to the condition of the stacks. I have since found the following letter written on the 16th February from the Harbour Trust to the General Manager, Wheat Marketing Scheme:—

Protection of Wheat Stacks. I am instructed by the Fremantle Harbour Trust Commissioners to draw your serious attention to the condition of the protective screens on many of the wheat stacks on the north side of the harbour. Up to about two months ago those screens appeared to be maintained in good order and were very effective as a protection to the stacked bags, but latterly this attention does not seem to have been so good, with the result that in several instances the screens are ripped and torn and are flapping and rubbing against the bags and in some cases wide stretches of the screens have gone altogether, and this is a serious matter with winter approaching. The stacks have stood splendidly up to the present, bearing silent testimony to the excellence of the stacking and protective work, but with the ageing of the bags, the absence or dilapidation of the screens may easily have a bad effect on the walls of the stack with possibly disastrous results. The Harbour Trust will in any case accept no responsibility for the safety of the stacks.

You also drew our attention to a letter dated 17th June in regard to the truck at Dumbleyung. This letter, with a number of others, was found on Mr. Keys' table. It should have been on the file. However, we now have that letter as well.

(The witness retired.)

The Commission adjourned.

FRIDAY, 19th 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, further examined:

3213. WITNESS: I would like to correct two paragraphs in the report of my evidence which appeared in the "West Australian" this morning. One is that I stated that most important documents were missing from the Wheat Scheme files. My statement was that I was not prepared to allow the company to be judged on the departmental files because my experience was that Government files were not always complete. That, you will admit, is a different thing from making a definite statement that most important documents were missing. The other mistake was that the letter written by the Harbour Trust was written at my instigation. Naturally that is an obvious error. I have a mass of detail bearing on the subject of confusion regarding dual control, and I cannot help thinking that the disadvantages of the dual control are so obvious to the Commission that it is hardly worth while for me to go on giving further instances of the disabilities under which we are labouring. There is, however, one matter that I would touch on—it was referred to yesterday—and then I will end with details. I complained that in the letter of the 23rd August, the statement to us was that the Government would provide stacking sites, and when the original draft of the agreement came along it was suggested that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., should provide the sites. As the agreement has not been signed in accordance with the letter of the 23rd August, it might be inferred that we received some benefit which was not anticipated when we made the contract. You said you had seen a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Railways by the manager of the Scheme which showed that he considered we were to provide the stacking sites.

3214. The CHAIRMAN: I said I had seen a memo, which I could not understand. In some places it is provided that you had to arrange for the stacks and in others they had to.

3215. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Do you mean provide or select?—Provide. They have to say, "You stack on that site," and they provide it and pay for it. Under the old agreement we used to provide the stacking sites; under the present agreement the Government have to show us where they want the wheat temporarily stacked. I want the commission to require the Scheme to produce a letter which they wrote on the 18th December, 1917, to the Commissioner of Railways. The letter begins as follows:—

I should be glad to receive all the assistance possible to obtain from your officers in connection with the handling of the next season's crop—

but the part I would direct your attention to is this:

This year the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., have been appointed sole Government acquiring agents