are assuming that there would be no facilities for getting the staff away, So far our facilities have been excellent: so much so that South Australia made a complaint to the Australia Wheat Commission that Western Australia was getting more than her share of shipping.

3370. Are we getting away what we did pre-war? —No, but we getting away every bit of flour we can make.

3371. There would be a certain holdover from one year to another?—Yes. We had 35,000 tons about a month ago in the big North Wharf shed. That is pretty well emptied out now, or we have got ships coming in that will take it out.

3372 By the CHAIRMAN: If you are getting away the whole of the flour, why do you want to build big sheds?—Because, at the time that the shed was decided upon, the flour was creeping on us at an enormous rate. Under the millers' agreement, the millers charge so much after a certain date for storage, and we had to get it away. We made a recommendation to the representative of the Imperial Government, and he suggested that we should build a shed for ourselves. That shed on the North Wharf is infested with rats, and we have had a certain loss in consequence. The building at North Fremantle will be rat-proof. That will be finished this week.

3373. The other shed with the exception of the front is all iron?—But it does not stop the rats getting in. They sometimes get smothered and they die and taint the wheat.

3374. Are you not basing your intentions really on the flour which is being purchased by the British Government, and which purchase is not going to last for all time?—I think you will find before long that negotiations for 1917-18 will be successful. It is fully anticipated that the shipping question will be considerably eased before October.

3375. You are aware of the fact that they intended to get the 1916-17 harvest away by August?—There were certain things which blocked that, as, for instance, the excessive submarining.

3376. Then to-day, so far as our wheat is concerned, that which we are gristing is to supply Imperial orders, and when those orders are finished there will be no market?—All those people (Allies) want flour, and they are sending their ships for it.

3377. Are you quite sure of that?—I am certain.

3378. According to the Prime Minister of England they expect to provide for themselves this year?—Of course I mean the Allies, who have to be fed. All our flour goes to France.

3379. Then the position is that to-day there is nothing sure about Great Britain taking our flour; it is all supposition?—Yes, but I am very optimistic about it. With regard to the weevil, people do not seem to realise the danger. Unless we take effective measures to hold the wheat, in five years' time there will be hardly a man on a farm. That is a big statement to make, but I believe it to be true.

3380. The position is that you can only hold one-third of the harvest in Western Australia, and you can do that for one year. It is useless for us to shut our eyes to the fact that we have no guarantee at present as to when our next harvest will be removed?—There have been about five million bushels of the 1916-17 wheat gristed. The harvest was about 13 million bushels.

3381. If bulk storage had been ready for taking the harvest in it would not have been possible to put in a grain of the 1917 harvest?—It all depends on what policy of the Government have. If you are guaranteeing your farmer 4s. a bushel, and you know that the only safe way to get a return for that 4s. is to spend 1s. a bushel, I look at it from that point of view. It is a sort of war insurance.

3382. Then you must keep on building silos?—Up to a certain limit I would.

3383. You have admitted that even some of the 1917-18 wheat has developed weevil, and there is no security that there will be storage for four million bushels of that crop?—It all depends on how you deal with it. We could have put up storage to hold it.

3384. You have suggested that you could take out the old and put in the new: would that not become infected?—You would empty the bins entirely.

3385. Suppose the wheat outside got a little weevil in it?—You could put carbon sulphide on that and you would kill the weevil. You would have to repeat the dose in three weeks' time to provide for any eggs which had been laid in the wheat in the meantime.

3386. There would be the expense all the time of treating the wheat?—It is cheaper than any other method, I should say 2d. a bushel cheaper.

3387. By Mr. HARRISON: Does that treatment affect the wheat for flour?—No.

3388. By the CHAIRMAN: In one case there is the possibility of the weevil being removed for all time, while in the other you have to re-treat it?—I do not hold there is a possibility. As soon as you can get the proper moisture in it, you get the weevil.

3389. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Provided the eggs are there?—It is wonderful where they come from.

3390. By the CHAIRMAN: According to Mr. Love, attempts have been made to breed weevil and they have failed?—I know the conditions under which those attempts were made; I was there.

3391. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: They never attempted to breed weevils without putting weevil in?—No. If you keep wheat dry weevil will not attack it, although the Rhizopertha dominica seems to attack wheat at any time. If you get moisture into a bin, weevil will attack the first eight or ten feet of it. Below the pressure of the grain is so great that the weevil are prevented from moving about, and, furthermore, the interstices are so small that the moisture gives off sufficient carbon dioxide, and that also kills the weevil.

3392. By the CHAIRMAN: Your idea, then, is that there is only one method, and that is bulk storage?—Yes, or emergency storage, as I prefer to call it.

3393. You say concrete?—Yes, because you can build so much cheaper with concrete than with timber.

3394. How is that?—Because there is an enormous quantity of timber required as against a small quantity of concrete. When I went to Melbourne I thought I knew something about bulk handling, but I had to learn it all over again.

3395. You estimated that you could provide timber storage for 20,000 bushels for £2,000?—I could build it more cheaply than that now.

3396. You have reduced the cost both as to wood and to concrete?—Yes. In regard to concrete, I had not then the same knowledge of moving forms as I have now. In New South Wales they are building a bins for 10¾d., including machinery. The actual concrete portion costs about 9d.

3397. Have you read Mr. Thompson's report, made when he came back from Canada?—Yes.

3398. Did you see extracts which he sent out from England before his return?—No, but I saw the principal letter which he sent to the Committee in August, 1913.

3399. He gave an estimate of the cost of building in Canada?—Yes, about 9d. per bushel.

3400. They are building for less than that in New South Wales new?—Yes. Of course that would include a certain amount of machinery. Wood in Canada is about £4 per thousand.

3401. But in Canada the concrete is from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d.?—Yes; that is where you require to take a comparison with a certain knowledge of conditions. That 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. is on the whole of a terminal. For instance, one of Metcalf's men built the Vancouver terminal recently to hold 1,250,000 bushels, and it panned out at 2s. 5d. per bushel. In New South Wales they are building one to hold six million bushels, and that is running out at 2s. 7d. It is the machinery portion that brings up the average to 2s. 6d. At Vancouver the wheat is brought down in bags and treated and bagged again, or sent away in bulk, but in New South Wales the conditions are these: it did not pay to put up bins at every station because of the small grain output; if they were ever turned into bulk handling a sufficient turnover would not be obtainable. So, to provide for those stations, they put their storage where they had excellent foundations, namely, on rocks, at Sydney Harbour. So each condition has its own peculiarity.

3402. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: How did you get those prices per bushel over there?—They are official. The one from Vancouver I obtained from the engineer himself.

3403. Did you get the New South Wales figures from the New South Wales Government?—Yes.

3404. Did you check the price per bushel from the capacity of the elevators?—Yes.

3405. Does the price include anything but the bins?—The building at Sydney Harbour is a complete bulk handling house, as if it were for bulk storage; therefore the thing is comparable. The Sydney terminal machinery is exactly the same as those provided in Canada.