3574. And do you think, from the knowledge at your disposal, that you are protecting them from any unfair competition?—I would be prepared to go further, and say on the specification that none but British machines shall be supplied, so as to make the matter absolutely certain.

3575. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Did Mr. Porter say anything to your about being prepared to supply plans?—He said that he was prepared to supply plans for nothing.

3576. Providing that his machinery was used?—Yes. He said, if not, he would not supply the plans.

3577. Would he insist on supplying the whole of the machinery, elevators, transmission plant, and all?—I take it, most of the machines that his firm construct.

3578. Do not they supply everything but the silos?—I think so.

3579. If you had had those plans from him, would there have been any difficulty in your carrying out the erection of the silo portion?—If you give us plans and specifications, then of course it is a very easy matter to build form them.

3580. All you needed, really, was the expert plans?—Yes.

3581. You have discussed this matter with the Engineer-in-Chief from time to time?—Yes.

3582. And you know that he has travelled extensively in the Old Country and in America in connection with it?—Yes.

3583. And I suppose you know he stated that all the manufacturers of this machinery were prepared to do the same thing; that is, supply plans if their machinery was adopted?—I believe he did state that. I do not remember his letter right through now.

3584. In that case you would have had all the competition necessary for the machinery, and would have had the plans provided as well?—Yes; but of course then the question comes in of arranging for the whole Scheme, country and everything, so that all parts will dovetail. We want an expert to advise us on the different speeds, on the way the different wheats will come from the country, and the arrangement of the country silos and their speeds.

3585. Would not that information be better supplied by the local authorities than by overseas people who know nothing of our conditions?—I do not know that.

3586. Who should be the best able to judge as to the method of distributing the elevators through the country?—Of course, the size of the elevators could not be determined without local knowledge.

3587. And that local knowledge is not possessed by Metcalfs?—No. It is possessed by Mr. Sutton.

3588. So that they would be dependent on us for that information to guide them in the design?—Yes.

3589. You could supply that information to firms in Manchester or in the United States just as easily as to a firm in Melbourne?—Yes. It would want a wheat man, a man who has been handling these big schemes, to see that everything fits in.

3590. You think we have nobody here to advise on that?—I think we want advice on that.

3591. You mean to say that we have not in this State anybody who could decide for Metcalf & Co. the question of the sites of the elevators?—We would assist in this way: Mr. Sutton knows, for instance, Kellerberrin, and could say whether the wheat production for that district is going to increase or decrease, and so he could determine the actual size of the bins necessary there.

3592. Metcalfs would have to get that information from our local officers?—Yes.

3593. And that information could be supplied to firms in England, or America?—I do not know of any firm having done such work without visiting the place.

3594. But the local knowledge is possessed by our local officers, and would have to be got from them?—That is so.

3595. So after all, the question is one of the actual designing of the elevators?—Yes, and of the working of the whole scheme.

3596. So you would want only those who are experts in the construction of elevators, without knowledge of local conditions?—And also knowledge of the working of the elevators.

3597. By the CHAIRMAN: I observe that Mr. Sutton, the Chairman of the Wheat board, after examining this letter, makes it from the following extract:—

As we have formerly explained to you, we do not think it wise—and Messrs. Symon agree with us—that we should undertake the contracts for the actual building work; but we are willing to contract for the supply and erection of the complete machinery equipment.

Then Mr. Sutton goes on to say:—

It will be seen that Messrs. Spencer and Symon only desire to contract for machinery equipment.

To show how unfair it is to make such an extract from Messrs. Spencer and Symon's letter, let me point out that that letter went on:—

We are also willing, if it is so desired, at the termination of the war to consider the forming of a syndicate, along with one or more firms of building contractors, to take contracts for the supply and erection of the whole of the elevators required, and it is possible, if so desired, that it might be arranged to finance the whole or a portion of the work.

?—I do not remember that letter at all.

3598. So far as you are concerned, Mr. Sutton answered this without reference to the Board?—Yes. That letter is news to me. I did not know that the firms offered to finance the Scheme.

3599. There is another paragraph which I may bring to your attention as engineer. It reads:—

We, as above explained, are not at present in a position to give full attention to this work, owing to the very important war work on which we are both engaged. We will not be in a position to manufacture the machinery during the period of the war, but we consider that is exceedingly unfair that a firm which is practically an American firm, should be permitted to take advantage of these circumstances in order to establish a footing in Australia at the expense of the British manufacturer.

So you see these people definitely stated that it is the war which blocked them?—That is so.

3600. Regarding the agreement with Metcalfs, were you on the Board when the Board decided that they would only erect elevators or only provide this storage for what was termed the Fremantle Zone?—That was our original report.

3601. The present Board also decided that they could only provide for the Fremantle Zone?—Practically so.

3602. The agreement with Metcalfs set forth that they should draw plans and specifications on the basis of three per cent. on the actual cost of the work, and two per cent. for supervision?—Yes.

3603. I believe that was also in the original agreement?—Yes. I think the original agreement was practically the same as that.

3604. With the exception that there was no definite statement whether it applied to one elevator or two elevators?—It is very hard to remember everything now. I am not trying to shirk any responsibility.

3605. You are aware that New South Wales paid £20,000 for the plans?—Yes.

3606. And that was also the agreement in South Australia?—Yes.

3607. I notice that in the last agreement with Metcalf three percent. is struck out, or, rather, that £9,000 is provided to be paid for preparation of plans?—That is so.

3608. Not three per cent. on the actual work done, as previously shown?—I think the Engineer-in-Chief wanted to limit the cost of production of the plans.

3609. I have here a report of the adjourned meeting of the Bulk Handling Committee, on which you sat, for the 16th October, 1916?—I think it means 1917. I notice it is 1916.

3610. This is on the 3 per cent. basis, providing for five million bushels?—I think we got it out for the chief, based on the Victorian prices.

3611. Yes. I notice under this it is a five million bushel scheme and you were to pay £2,964 for plans and £3,720 for supervision. I want to get it, if it was to be a five million bushel scheme only, it would be less than £4,000?—They never agreed to that. It was a misreading of the agreement between the Engineer-in-Chief and myself.

3612. They agreed to the three per cent.?—They would not sign any agreement that did not state a certain sum for the plans.

3613. But they did?—Have you seen the agreement?