view of the long voyage from Australia and the varying temperatures en route, it may not be advisable for an entire cargo to be carried in bulk, but that a partial change from the existing custom might be made by loading, say, two-thirds in bulk, that is, below the water line, and on the top of that one-third in bags, a good platform of boards separating the bulk from the bags —That is the usual practice.

3481. That will show that it will be necessary for export according to this letter, and you can only carry two-thirds in bulk and one-third in bags. A large number of bags will have to be carried as previously? —I do not know where the gentleman is making his statement from, but Lloyd's people, who govern these things, only allow eight to ten per cent., I think eight pre cent., of bags on top, the rest in bulk.

3482. I notice also in a lot of the letters from shipping companies, they also make it a condition that although they will carry bulk grain, at least one-third has to be in bags? —Some of them made certain conditions like that.

3483. The majority of them? —It is such a long time now. On the back of the report, I think, it says something to that effect.

3484. If you look up the correspondence you will find that the shipping companies who said they could carry two-thirds in bulk and one-third in bags are put down as carrying bulk grain, and it is not explained at all?—Yes. It says " will carry grain in bulk," That is right.

3485. By Mr BROWN: Some of those companies have never traded to Australia? —We made it as wide as possible. If we have got the cargoes here we will get the ships.

3486. By the CHAIRMAN: Take Cayser, Irvine, & Co., Ltd? —It says " carry grain in bulk on occasional trip."

3487. In the letter it says that two-thirds must be carried in bags. Is not your remark misleading to say they will carry grain in bulk? —I do not think it is altogether misleading.

3488. They go on to say "it will only be on occasion that we could agree to this" J. C Harrison, Ltd., are put down to carry grain in bulk, are they not?—Will carry grain in bulk:"

3489. In reply to a letter which was sent from here they say— In reply we would advise you that under certain conditions we are quite prepared to carry grain in bulk at this route. We would make the following observations. Previously and now the carriage of grain from Western Australia has been and is being made under certain specified regulations, almost entirely in bags. Should grain be shipped in bulk from Western Australia, the acting authorities, both in Western Australia and in this contrary, would necessarily lay down further regulations for the efficient and safe carriage of grain carried in this manner, and also from the point of view of the safety of transporting steamer. These regulations which would be laid down would entail a considerable amount of expense on the steamer's part (that is owner's) in providing considerable quantities of shifting boards, dunnage , feeders, etc., which would be necessary. We can only surmise what the new regulations would be necessitated by the carriage of grain in bulk, but should these regulations be onerous, or as we are afraid as is very often the case, unnecessarily onerous, it would increase the cost of the steamer's freight very considerably—whatever the cost of carrying out such regulations—to incorporate the cost of same in the rate of freight asked. Should, however, the regulations be reasonable, we should say that we, as owners, would be quite prepared to carry grain in bulk from Western Australia to this country. In conclusion, we would say that the increased cost of fitting steamer for carrying grain in bulk over grain in bags would be about £300 or £400 per steamer, but we have no doubt that the saving in the weight of bags and cost of same to shippers would more than compensate them for the small extra freight asked by the shipowner to cover the increased initial cost of carrying grain in bulk, once steamer fitted, however, for carrying grain in bulk no further expense need be incurred when carrying subsequent cargoes. —With regard to that two things have to be borne in mind. A ship is only practically one-third of the time loading in bulk, and, secondly, in bulk they carry twelve per cent more cargo than in bags. Those two things are worth some money to the shipowners.

3490. By Hon J. F. ALLEN: The ship may be fitted for carrying grain in bulk from Australia home. It would have to be altered for carrying general cargo?—These boards are very light things. The work is done very quickly and cheaply.

3491. But they have to be shifted every time?—It would not be a very costly business, and the fact of a ship saving so much being in and out of port quickly, and being able to carry twelve per cent. more cargo, is worthy of some consideration.

3492. When on that work, did you enter into the cost of insurance in regard to carrying in bulk?—Yes; we had some information from Bristol, from Messrs Risely & Co. They are big brokers there.

3493. By the CHAIRMAN: I notice that almost all those who say they carry grain in bulk put down certain conditions, and a large number which you have set down as carrying grain in bulk point out that they can only carry about two-thirds of grain out in bulk? —Yes.

3494. By Hon J. F. ALLEN: What is the nature of the reply in regard to the insurance?—I cannot remember; it is a long time ago.

3495. I notice they would not insure wheat in transit around Cape Horn?—All the western coast of America is going into bulk now, and I suppose goes through the Panama Canal.

3496. The journey would be no more than from Australia ?—That is so, and it is a long time in the tropics.

3497. By the CHAIRMAN: I think the matter was referred to the West Australian Board of Underwriters?—Yes, we had Mr. Murray on it.

3498. You are satisfied then there would be no difficulty, but you would have to get other ships to carry the grain for companies trading particularly to Australia at that time?—We only made the inquiries to satisfy ourselves that grain would be carried by the ships.

3499. From the letters we can rest assured that one-third of the grain shipped from this State would have to go in bags?—I would not like to say that.

3500. By HARRISON: You still stick to your 10 to 12 per cent?—Yes. We have never sent a full ship, and that is the only way to test it.

3501. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Did you get any information from ship captains as well as from owners of ships?—No. We used to leave those questions to Mr Stevens.

3502. By the CHAIRMAN: What was your intention at the time you prepared your Scheme in 1913; was it intended to carry out departmentally the erection of silos and elevators? —That was the idea.

3503. Then the Department were of the opinion that there were officers with the necessary ability to carry out this work?—That was not inferred. What we said was that we had to get the best advice on the matter.

3504. If you intended to carry out the work departmentally, you must have been of that opinion?—We would have had to employ someone; the department did not have the necessary knowledge.

3505. You are satisfied then that the department did not have the necessary knowledge to carry out this work?—More than satisfied now.

3506. Can you tell me why Metcalf's are the only company that have had an opportunity of taking part in this work?—I suppose they are the only people who have tried.

3507. Have you been through your files dealing with this matter?—Generally speaking, yes, but there are so many of them.

3508. There are other firms, Symons & Co., and Spencer &Co., and others?—The board were strongly of the opinion that they should have nothing to do with any firm that was manufacturing machinery.

3509. And the Board are strongly opposed to that to-day?—So far as I know, yes.

3510. Did you see a report which was prepared by Mr. Connolly, Agent General, dealing with bulk handling in Canada?—I have heard of it.