some newspaper comments which were published about last August that the Engineer-in-Chief and myself inserted that clause in Metcalf's agreement so as to safeguard the British manufacturers.

3553. In November, 1916, Mr. Milne signed a protest on behalf of the British manufacturers?—I think the first lot of contractors was turned down by the Government, which called fresh tenders. I think that is what gave rise to this.

3554. Both you and the Engineer-in-Chief must have a good deal of knowledge of the class of machinery manufactured by other firms?—We have all their catalogues and know what they have used elsewhere.

3555. You can form your opinion from their catalogues as to the sizes or openings required for the purpose of connecting their machinery?—I think so. The Engineer-in-Chief said distinctly that if we are to have a scheme at all it is far better to employ people who know something about it than to bungle along and endeavour to find out by our own experience. I think the clause in the agreement will give us sufficient power to see that the British manufacturers are not penalised at all.

3556. You can tell by the plans before the building is put up?—We would have to find out from the plans and specifications whether they were right or wrong.

3557. Under present conditions it is impossible to find out?—At present no milling machinery can be bought on account of the excessive cost.

3558. Seeing that you can tell so well as to what machinery is necessary, why can you not as an officer also prepare the plans for erecting these elevators, the machinery and also silos, in accordance with the many plans which are in existence of those structures now erected elsewhere?—If you only saw the work entailed in one of these things you would see that it required years of experience to lay them out. Personally I would not undertake to do it for one second.

3559. You could not work it out from the plans?—Absolutely no.

3560. That being so, how can you claim to have sufficient experience to speak about the machinery that is required to go into these buildings?—There are dozens of ways of doing it. If you yourself had a clause like that to work under you would take fine care that the manufacturers were not penalised.

3561. You also know that not only has Mr. Milne, the British Board of Trade Commissioner, objected to the principles which are being adopted, but that objections have also been lodged by the Agent General?—I do not know that.

3562. You know it is the usual practice when the Premier receives a communication from the Agent General for it to be forwarded on to the Minister of the department concerned, and for that communication to be laid before the Minister?—I take it that is the general rule.

3563. You would be surprised if it was not followed out in this instance?—Yes.

3564. Mr. Baxter said he did not know anything about any objection having been lodged. I find from the files that an objection came in during Mr. Mitchell's time. On file 376/13 of the Agricultural Department appears a letter dated the 31st October, 1916, from W. Delap Goslett to Hon. M. L. Moss, acting Agent General for Western Australia, London, as follows:—

I enclose herewith a letter addressed by Messrs. Spencer & Co. of Melksham, Wilts, to Messrs. Strachan, Murray & Shannon Proprietary, Ltd., Melbourne, under the heading of bulk handling of grain in Australia. This letter was written jointly by Messrs. Spencer & Co., Ltd., and Messrs. Henry Symon, Ltd., the two largest and best-known grain elevator constructing firms, and you will see form same that Mr. Murray states that they had carried out 90 per cent. of the grain elevation of the world. This should be sufficient recommendation for Australia. I should like to mention here that it is now the intention of these two firms to jointly send out Mr. Porter, whom you met with me, at the end of next month (November) to Australia, with full authority; and he is, I may mention, an expert as regards bulk handling. However, this gentleman will be seeing you before he leaves for Australia, and I told him that you would kindly give him letters of introduction should they be of help to him, and for which he desired me to thank you and to say that he will avail himself of your kindly offer before sailing.

The following is an extract from a letter from the Agent General dated the 1st November, 1916—

Bulk handling of grain.—Mr. W. Delap Goslett, whom you know, has seen me several times lately respecting the important subject of bulk handling of grain in Australia. You may have heard that a number of gentlemen recently met in London, the object being to discuss the subject with a view to taking every step possible to ensure that British manufacturers of elevating machinery shall be given preference over American or other firms. I enclose a letter which Mr. Goslett addressed to me yesterday, together with the enclosure referred to, viz., a letter from Messrs. Spencer & Co. of Melksham, Wilts. A number of inquiries have of late been made as to why some of the Australian Governments were giving orders to Messrs. John S. Metcalf & Co. of Chicago, Montreal, and London, in preference to British manufacturers. It was also reported recently that the firm referred to had some foreign shareholders, but, as a result of communicating with the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, I have been advised that the "firm is well regarded" and that "there would appear to be no grounds for suspecting enemy elements in it." At the meeting held in London of British manufacturers who are able to supply these elevators, it was reported that Metcalf's representative was endeavouring to induce the Australian Governments to give them what is practically an exclusive right to the installation of the elevating machinery, and my object in writing now is to inform you that Mr. Porter, who will be visiting Western Australia on behalf of Messrs. Spencer & Co., Ltd., and Messrs. Henry Symon, Ltd., in conjunction, will be calling upon you, as these firms have been advised that the Government have in contemplation the erection of elevators, and they wish to be given every opportunity of tendering for the works and machinery in Western Australia as well as other States.

Mr. Lefroy on that occasion was acting as deputy Premier. He forwarded that minute to the Minister for Agriculture, and the Under Secretary, Mr. McNulty, forwarded it to the chairman of the Wheat Board. There is no record of that here.

3565. There is no record on this file of its having been brought under the Minister's notice?—I do not remember seeing that.

3566. It was never brought before the Board when you were a member of the Board?—I do not remember it at all. The first thing I knew about Porter was when I met him in Melbourne. Of course I knew for a long time before that there was a young yellow named Burkett—that is, Capt. Burkett—agent for Spencer's; and he used to speak to me about Porter. In fact, I tried to get him to induce Porter to come out on his own.

3567. Were you not aware that the firm offered to send out a man free of cost?—Yes; and the Government turned it down.

3568. No; they said it was not opportune as the Board were discussing the matter?—I think it was after that. I think Mr. Johnson was Minister for Works at the time.

3569. No; Mr. Bath was Minister for Lands. Metcalf's appear to have jumped in between without any consideration to the other firms at all?—I do not know even now how Metcalf's came into it.

3570. I did not know until last night, but I can guess now?—I could not tell you.

3571. In your opinion, the attention of the Minister should have been drawn to the protest sent along by the Premier?—I think it should have gone to the Minister. The Minister should see all those things.

3572. It appears to me that Mr. Sutton usurped the Minister's position and answered the protest?—I do not know what happened.

3573. You see that these British people who had carried out such a large proportion of this work throughout the world are of the opinion that they were not given fair play in this matter?—That is what they think, yes.