of co-operation, where our inspector complained to the local agent of the manner in which he was doing his work. The local agent replied that he was not taking instructions from the inspector. Our inspector, who was not going to see the wheat lost, made it his business to see Mr. Mather, the secretary of the local society, in the hope of bringing about a better state of affairs. I do not know what the result was. We referred the matter to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. There, you see, was a case where the co-operative society were doing the work. Kellerberrin is a big farming centre and the work was being done in a shocking manner. Our inspector complained, and he was practically told to mind his own business. 4346. So it is the local companies that are really not dealing fairly with the Westralian farmers, Ltd.?—That is the case. 4347. Should there be neglect, there cannot be big profits for the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—Neglect on the part of the local company will reflect on the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., but the loss would be that of the farmers as a whole. 4348. The Westralian Farmers, Ltd., consequently cannot gain. If I agreed with you to look after stacks for so much money, and I failed in my duty, there would be no financial gain to me?—None at all. 4349. Therefore, there would be no gain to ?— I can quote another instance. A few days ago an inspector of mine wrote about the Korrelocking stacks. They were neglected and disarranged, and they were in such a condition that water could run into the stacks. There was also loose wheat lying about the stack, and the inspector suggested that we should send up a man to attend to these things. Notwithstanding the Westralian Farmers are paid to do the work, I am sending up a gang on Monday with my chief inspector to see that these stacks are out into proper order. 4350. Seeing that there is no personal gain, I cannot conceive the Westralian Farmers instructing them not to pick up wheat?—I think it is lack of competent inspection. 4351. It would not be an instruction?—I can scarcely conceive the Westralian Farmers deliberately instructing men not to pick up wheat. 4352. You do not think that the reason is that the price is cut too low?—The Westralian Farmers are being paid well for their services. I do not know what they are paying their sub-agents. 4353. The neglect being shown by the sub-agents would suggest that they are getting too small a price?—Possibly they are. I notice that in answer to question 2898 Mr. Murray in his evidence said that what they were getting for roofing stacks was a losing proposition to them. The amount we are paying for the roofing of the stacks is a sore point with me, for in my opinion we are paying twice as much as should be necessary. We are paying one halfpenny per bushel for the roofing. I am told that the Westralian Farmers retain half of this and do not work for it, while the sub-agent gets the other half and does all the work. 4354. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH : Have they to keep the roof in repair for that money?—Yes, but the roofs are there scarcely long enough to need repair. 4355. But in the case of Korrelocking, have you notified them that the roof is bad?—I cannot say that we have. They are supposed to keep the roof under proper care. 4356. Will you be able to charge them the cost of the repairs?—We will attempt to charge them for neglect of duty. In respect to the roofing of the 1917-18 stacks, for which we are paying one halfpenny, I understand that the sub-agent at Doodlakine says that even the amount he got, namely, one-half of that, represented an overpayment. 4357. By the CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murray stated that much of the cost of roofing would have been avoided if the Scheme had earlier stated what stacks were to be roofed; he inferred that as it was understood the stack was to be only temporary it was not built with a view to roofing, and so in the end a large number of stacks had to be altered to receive the roofing?—The only stack on which they had to do any reconstruction work was that at Quairading. I agree that the stacks were not built in proper manner for roofing. 4358. And it would mean increased cost when the stack had to be roofed?—Making due allowances for everything, the amount paid was about twice as much as we should be paying. 4359. By Mr. HARRISON: The termination of the agreement on the 30th April was an indication to the sub-agents as the lines on which to construct the stacks; they thought the wheat would dispatched early?—The agreement did not terminate on the 30th April. 4360. What did?—A clause in the agreement pre-scribes that the wheat is to be away by the 30th April, or as mutually arranged. 4361. By the CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murray claims that that provision "date to be mutually arranged" was not mentioned previously?—I called your attention to that the other day. I saw Mr. Murray's agreement with his sub-agents in December, and then i pointed out to Mr. Taylor that the commission clause was worded, if the wheat was not away by the 30th April he would be let in for a lot of trouble, for the agents would be able to claim it for commission, whereas he would not. 4362. Was the agreement altered?—I cannot say. In regard to the building of stacks, the agreement was a copy of of that of the previous season, one of the clauses in which prescribed that the stacks should be properly built. They crossed out "properly" and inserted "temporarily." I pointed out out to Mr. Taylor that apart altogether from the duration of the stack there was only one way in which to built it and that was properly. I drew attention of Mr. Taylor to several clauses in the draft agreement requiring amendment. 4363. So possibly much of the trouble is owing to the agreement entered into the sub-agents?—Yes, but the points referred to may have been amended since I drew attention to them. 4364. By Mr. BROWN: That might also apply to the sub-agencies of the mercantile firm?—They were not operating this year. 4365. But the year before?—They were all under one agreement. To revert to the inferior wheat: Mr. Wake, in his evidence, said that Dalgety,s and the Scheme held back supplies to inflate prices. We certainly do keep wheat off the market to prevent it being flooded, but we do not starve the market for high prices. We try to place on the market just sufficient for requirements. 4366. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Who controls the that, you or Dalgety's?—the Scheme controls it. Dalget's advise us that they are getting too much wheat down, and we notify the station. 4367. Then the blame for any glut or shortage does not rest with Dalgety's?—In respect to glut, no; but in respect of shortage, they ought to notify us. 4368. By Mr. BROWN: What is the average per day as a fair quantity to put on the market?—I can not tell you offhand, but there is a weekly quantity which Dalgety's recon the metropolitan can absorb. 4369. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Is it true that wheat has been brought from North Fremantle?—Not since I have been connected with the Scheme. Now I come to the question of the shipping of wheat; up to the end of December the shipper acquiring agents had made all the shipments on behalf of the Scheme, and they were liable under their agreement to turn out the quantity of wheat to their certificates. As time went on it became apparent that the checking of the sample at the port of dis-charge was not as stringent as it might have been. It was not as stringent as it was in pre-war days. Gradually the shippers began to take advantage of this circumstance, and shipped cargo which they would not perhaps risk in normal times. When i was in Melbourne recently, Mr. Love said they had received a number of complaints in regard to the to the several cargoes, but that the complaints had not been officially. He thought that perhaps in the near future they would have to insist upon Government inspection of all wheat shipped. I pointed out that in this State since