not roofing, and they have not caretaking for 10 months. The extra service in Victoria costs ½d. per bushel, so that if you add the ½d. on to the 1⅝d. here, or take it off the 2⅜., it shows there is a difference of ¼d. between the two States. 4573. According to Question 2879, he says they get 1⅞d. in Victoria?—No; 2⅜d. 4574. Mr. Murray said, "Our total remuneration is 1⅝d., while their remuneration was 2⅜d. plus 1½d.?—I do not know where he gets the 1½d. from. Did he say where it came from? 4575. In Victoria they are required to deliver it to the mills, if prior to the 25th March, when the stacks were completed, and they got an additional 1½d. per bushel to put it into the truck from their own stack?—There must be something wrong there. I think that would reduce their remuneration because, if they have not to stack it at the depot, they would have to send it to the mill, and that is the end of their responsibility with the wheat. I have not seen a copy of the Victorian agreement; I do not think it is signed yet, but I am quoting from figures supplies by the manager of the Victorian Wheat Scheme. 4576. That is how he makes up the 1½d.?—It is a peculiar way of making the calculation. 4577. According to Question 2896, Mr. Murray is asked, " The position now is as far as I can gather, with the exception of dunnage you are doing for 2¼d. what they are charging 3⅞d. for in Victoria," and his answer is, "Quite so"?—That is entirely wrong. It is rather an important point because it has been stated that the agents in the Eastern States are making such a lot out of the business there that they could afford to do the business here for nothing to keep the Westralian Farmers out of it. As far as Victoria is concerned, there is very little difference between the two States. In Victoria although the firms, in my opinion, are only ¼d. better off, quite a number are handling the crop, while here only one has the lot. 4578. But you offered a farthing difference here?—At the time we offered to do it at a farthing less. 4579. The Government here offered one farthing in addition if there was competition?—It was some such amount from memory. 4580. Or in other words, the Scheme offered a farthing more in competition than without competition?—That is the position. 4581. So that, with competition in Victoria, and no competition here, in comparison one is getting the same as the other?—I would not say that, because Victoria has a much larger crop. Here our crop was 2½ million bags, while the Victoria crop was 10 million bags, possibly more. 4582. A larger crop is cheaper to handle?—In doing more work you reduce the overhead expenses. In another section of his remarks Mr. Murray stated, how can a man who says that a running sample shall be taken, and then that a bag sample shall be taken, be relied on? Mr. Murray is aware that Mr. Sibbald wrote the letter of the 23rd August. I have always been against a running bulk sample. 4583. Mr. Murray implies that those conditions were included by the wheat buyers previously, and prices which should be asked?—It was never intended that they should be taken as final. 4584. I cannot understand a private acquiring agent suggesting that the Government should be asked for prices for a running bulk sample when that was never intended?—The position was that Mr. Sibbald had a conference with the old agents and he asked for prices for certain services. They gave those, and as a basis of operations they set out certain conditions, and this was one of them. You may say that a running bulk sample should apply in various ways, as regards the natural weight, and that it need not apply as regards foreign matter. It was only put in as a basis on which to start a discussion. 4585. Mr. Sibbald accepted it?—No, he did not. The Scheme then sent a letter to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., embodying those conditions, so that when they got quotations from the Westralian Farmers both quotations would be on similar conditions. 4586. Mr. SIbbald had some experience in handling wheat?—I cannot say; he was manager of the Northam mill for a number of years. 4587. Does it not seem strange that when sending out for quotations they should ask for a quote under a condition which it was never intended to apply?—It was only with the object of making a comparison. 4588. As a rule when tenders are called they are called with the full intention of carrying out the work?—The two things are not comparable. 4589. You said you would not countenance a running bulk sample?—Not as a means of checking the agent. 4590. Yet the acquiring agents suggested to the Scheme that they should have a running bulk sample, knowing at the time that if the Scheme adopted their suggestion it would be detrimental to the Scheme?—Yes, if the agents carried out their duty when they took the wheat from the farmer. 4591. If the agents accepted it at the siding and worked carefully, it was all right?—Yes; and if they did not the Government would fall in. 4592. I cannot see the difference. Mr. Allen is an architect, and he may suggest to a man who wants to build a home that he should put up a certain kind of wall which might or might not stand. This wall would be put up?—You as a builder might accept the contract for building a house. In your opinion the foundations might not be satisfactory; you might have private knowledge of the ground. But it does not say that you are going to provide extra foundations because the foundations arranged for will not stand. You will say that you will put up the house with the foundations according to the specifications. 4593. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: I take it that your opinion, with regard to the running bulk sample, was practically shared by the other acquiring agents when you were with them?—I do not know whether we ever discussed it much. If we did, we knew it would never be agreed to. 4594. I presume that would be the opinion of the others?—I should say so. It was put in on instructions from Melbourne. 4596. Is not this the position: the acquiring agents realised that they were responsible for the wheat accepted by their sub-agents, and if the sub-agents made any errors by not being too careful in accepting the wheat, by having a running bulk sample adopted it would relieve them to a large extent of the responsibility they were carrying?—It certainly would, but the responsibility was limited. 4597. All we know is that the suggestion was made, and we do not know the reason for it?—That is it. 4598. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Was the responsibility for the farthing per bushel embodied in the proposal?—Yes. There is another statement of Mr. Murray's to which I wish to refer. He states that Mr. Taylor had an interview with the Minister and Mr. Keys in connection with the agreement, and that the Minister distinctly stated the conditions Mr. Keys was embodying in the agreement were never suggested by him, and that Mr. Keys never had any legal or moral right to put them in. I explained that all I did in regard to the agreement was known to the Minister and was done under the advice of Mr. Sayer, the Solicitor General. 4599. By Mr. HARRISON: Were there material alterations in the agreement as compared with the former agreement?—The main questions were the shipment of the wheat, the running bulk sample and the time of the clean-up of the country stacks. 4600. Did they throw any further responsibility on the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—The sampling would if they carried it out properly. The shipment of the wheat would not, except whatever was agreed on, and the other point, the clearing up of country sidings by April 30th, that was overridden by the letter of October 12th. 4601. Then it did not throw on the Westralian Farmers much capital outlay; they did not lose by it?—No capital outlay. The only other point I have listed is in connection with weevil. I have rather a lengthy statement to read to you on this matter. It is as follows:— In view of the statements that have been made from time to time as to the spread and ravages of weevil in