Wheat (1) - Part 3

Image 205
image 6 of 100

This transcription is complete

Public Works Department. Each agent's duties are defined. There has been no over-lapping that I know of. 4421. By the CHAIRMAN: From the evidence it appears that almost the whole of the responsibility of caring for the wheat has been on the Scheme almost from the time the wheat was acquired?—You mean as regards the 1917-18 crop? 4422. Yes?—There is no liability, or practically no liability on the Westralian Farmers. You may put it that way. 4423. The position is that under the old system the acquiring agent had to see to the protection of the wheat because he was liable for any loss?—Yes, he was liable under the agreement. 4424. I am dealing now with wet grain?—As a fact in actual practice the agents were not liable . 4425. They did not pay? It can be put that way. 4426. In this connection the dual control comes in, because previously dunnage, looking after stacking sites, roofing to protect from weather, and sneerings had to be provided by the country agents. But on this occasion those things had to be provided by the Scheme?—What do you mean by provision of stacking sites? Do you mean actual payment for the site or selection of the site? 4427. Selection and payment too?—The Scheme had nothing to do with selection of sites this year. I know Mr. Murray, in answer to Mr. Allen, told the Commission differently. 4428. But I note that prior to the contract being let Mr. Sibbald and a railway engineer went into the country for the express purpose of picking out sites?—They went out for the express purpose of seeing whether sites were available at all sidings. With one exception , the scheme have never told the Westralian farmers where to stack wheat in any given spot. In fact, the Westralian Farmers have, in some instances, stacked wheat from one end of the railway siding to the other, scattered all over the place. 4429. You claim that the picking out of the site had to be done by the Westralian Farmers?—Yes. 4430. And the dunnage?—We supplied. 4431. I notice by one of the files that in many cases application was made for dunnage and that some considerable time elapsed before the dunnage was provided. I also notice that the same thing applied to roofing. Stacks had been ordered to be roofed and application was made for the roofing material, but some time elapsed before the material was there for that purpose; and in the meantime the stack had got thoroughly drenched?—I do not know that that is the position in regard to the roofing. After it had been decided to roof the stacks, the roofing material was sent on, or ordered to be sent on, to the various stations. There may have been some delay in getting the roofing material along to an odd station. I cannot say unless a specific instances is mentioned. 4432. Let me give you one specific instance; and it is not the only one. On the 27th April a order was sent from only one. On the 27th April an order was sent from Kellerberrin for roofing, iron, timber etc. On the 30th April, in response to a letter sent to Mr.Hayes from Spencer's Brook , word was received that the material had been sent on to Kellerberrin. On the 22nd May the Farmers were notified in regard to this matter?—The Westralian Farmers were not notified till the 22nd May that the material had been sent on? 4433. Yes; They were still writing asking for material, and they were notified that 1,500 feet of timber had been sent forward?—That was only a small portion of the timber. They ordered a certain quantity of timber which was supplied; and probably they found they were about 1,500 feet short, and for this they may have subsequently asked. 4434. But this is dealing with the same order?— I think the quantity of timber would be considerably more than 1,500 feet. 4435. From the time the order was sent in until the Westralian Farmers were notified that the material had gone forward , a month elapsed?—I think there must be some mistake. I myself was at Kellerberrin two or three days after the 22nd May and the stack had been all roofed before then. There was some delay in getting the galvanized iron to Kellerberrin. 4436. You had some difficulty in regard to the Bruce Rock site. It was found necessary to fill up the site. The railway officers said that ashes could be used for that purpose. On the 27th December , after the matter had been brought under your notice, you wrote to the Railway Department asking that the site be attended to. You got the formal acknowledgement on the 2nd January. Of course there were the holidays in between. You got your reply to that letter on the 25th March, 1918, three months later, pointing out that it was then unnecessary to prepare the site, as the stack had been put there and removed again?—It is a very hard matter to move the Railway Department to do anything. 4437. After going through a number of these files , there is not the least doubt in my mind that if the agents had carried this year the same responsibility for care of stacks would have been covered instead of being saturated?—In the past the agents rarely covered the wheat stacks before April. 4438. But they made provision for covering in case wet weather came along?—I have not known them to do that in this State. 4439.Not when they carried the responsibility?—No. 4440. When the agent, being responsible, sees likelihood of a break in the weather, he immediately sends forward material in order to protect his won interests?—In previous seasons we have not tried to get roofed before the 30th April. We do not take any notice of summer rains on wheat stacks ; those rains rarely do any damage. They must be something exceptional to do any damage. 4441. But in normal times your wheat went away. From your experience of the first 12 months of the wheat remaining here, would you not make provision?—If we were going to keep our wheat stacks at the country sidings at the present time, I would certainly say that the proper way to roof would be to build the stacks in sections and to roof each section as completed. But under the present system, if we attempted that, we would be spending thousands upon thousands of pounds unnecessarily. 4442. But are you not losing thousands upon thousands of pounds by merely allowing the wheat to get wet and take weevil?—I am not aware of it. We had a small amount of loss, spread over the whole, on account of the damaged wheat . But recently we had one stack of 1916-17 wheat shifted from Trayning; and I think the loss of that stack alone was equal to the total loss this season. We have nothing to equal that this year. 4443. You have not had the experience to know?—Our stacks are pretty well cleaned up. I have seen quite a lot of wheat. I have been twice within the last month to Spencer's Brook and the greater part which is being brought in there is in good order and condition. There is a certain quantity where the bags are damaged outside by mold. 4444. According to the evidence we have a great quantity of wheat has been put into Spencer's Brook in a damaged condition?—That was reported to the Board also, and we went to Spencer's Brook last Friday and we asked Mr. Hayes, who reported it, what section of the stack he would like broken down. He pointed it out and we broke it down, and I have left it still broken down in case the Commission would like to go there and see it. The condition of the wheat in the stack is that it is slightly after stacking and not prior. The damage consisted of slight mold on the outside and inside for a few inches the wheat was attached to the bags. There might be a loss of 2lbs, 3lbs, or 4 lbs of wheat the damage is practically nil, speaking broadly. 4445. If you get a few hundred bags of damp wheat that is likely to breed weevil and if the wheat has got to be stacked for 12 months, is there not a danger of the whole stack being damaged?—I do not think the wheat getting wet will breed weevil, but I think wet wheat is more likely to get weevily quicker than dry wheat. 4446. By Mr. HARRISON: Is it not true that there are two conditions for the development of wee-