4604. By the CHAIRMAN: The following is an extract from the summary of a conference of the Australian Wheat Board meeting held on the 16th January:— In view of the advice received from the London committee on the question of reducing our wheat areas in favour of stock and pig raising, it was decided that the matter of advising farmers be left to the Governments of the individual States, to give whatever advice they may think fit. You have seen that before?—I recollect it now. 4605. Can you give us any reason why the London committee should advise as to reduction of wheat areas?—I do not know what their reasons were at all. 4606. You do not think it would be as to the possibility of not being able to get the wheat away?—I should say that would be one of the main factors. I cannot conceive otherwise of their advising a reduction of wheat areas. 4607. It would not be that they think, in view of the large quantity of wheat being grown, and in view of the State guarantee, in all probability there would be a loss to Australia?—There should be not be a loss if we can get the wheat away. Of course, if we are to grow wheat and stack it here indefinitely, it may become valueless under our system of storing. 4608. But is it not possible that if peace is proclaimed the wheat will not be required?—The wheat will be required all right. 4609. You are certain of that?—Positive. 4610. You do you not think the other countries could grow immediately sufficient wheat to meet their requirements?—No. 4611. It would take only a season?—But Europe has never grown sufficient wheat for its needs, never at any time. 4612. Under normal conditions, that is?—Yes. Europe's main sources of supply have been Russia, India, Romania, North America, the Argentine, and Australia. 4613. But some of the European countries have been bringing in additional areas for wheat production, areas which at other times did not grow wheat at all?—So far as I know, that applies only to England. There has been a big reduction in the quantity of flour for bread, owing to the use of other ingredients, such as rye, for example. In normal times people, of course, prefer the wheat bread. 4614. This could not be taken personally, so far as the London committee are concerned, because the more wheat they sell the more commission they get?—That is so. 4615-16. And their advice was given purely in the interests of Australia?—Yes. Personally I think it was on account of the freight problem. 4617-18. The price being higher on account of the higher freight would cause some difficulty as well?—That is so. 4619. Mr. Murray, in his evidence, referred to a letter which you gave the Minister on the subject of provision of sites, and also to a letter to the Railway Department, in which he claims that the word "not" was deliberately omitted when writing to the Minister. Can you give any explanation as to that?—I do not know that Mr. Murray claims the word was deliberately left out. This is what happened: In a letter sent to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., the word "not" was inserted in ink, but, unfortunately, was not inserted in the copy placed on the file. That is the cause of Mr Murray's remarks. The letter sent to the Westralian Farmers was to the effect that they were not responsible for the cost of the stacking sites; but the letter placed on the file read that they were responsible. A letter was also sent to the Railway Department pointing out that the Scheme for the stacking sites. The letter to the Westralian Farmers, and that to the Railway Department, were in accord with one another. 4620. Mr Murray left on my mind the impression that he saw the letter in the Railway Department. (Question and answer 2971 read)?—You see it is dealing with a letter sent to the Railway Department, so the reason is the "not" was put in and the copy was not treated similarly?—That is the position. 4621. And when it came under your notice you saw the word "not" was there and you merely took a copy of the letter?—When I was dealing with the question of providing sites I was looking at the letter on the file, and I saw that the Westralian Farmers were responsible for the stacking sites. the word "not" had not been put in on the file copy. 4622. You could not tell us weather the letter you sent to the Railway Department was signed by you personally, or the rubber stamp was used as usual?—Mr Hall signed it. 4623. You were led astray by the error of the officer not wording the copy as the original?—Quite so. The whole question was not of importance, because the railways were not charging us for stacking sites. 4624. Mr. Murray is trying to impress on the Commission the fact that the error was made expressly——?—It is an error that may happen in any office. 4625. We should have evidence to show the reason of it?—Yes. But I drew the attention of Mr. Murray to the error. 4626. He knew all about the it before the evidence was given here?—Yes. 4627. I notice the "Kangaroo" was intended to take bulk wheat to England last year. What was the decision given by Lloyd's surveyor about it?—It was supposed to be partly loaded at Geraldton, and completed at Fremantle, and Lloyd's surveyor would would not give a certificate for her to be partly loaded and come to Fremantle partly loaded and partly in ballast. 4628. That is the reason?—Yes. 4629. Would he agree to give a certificate from Fremantle?—Yes, with full cargo. 4630. Was that put to him?—I do not know, but he could not refuse. 4631. Was it in writing or verbal?—Mr. Stevens informed Mr Hall. I have no official knowledge from the files on the subject but personally I am of opinion that if the matter had been forced the surveyor would have given a certificate, and I am inclined to think it was suggested to him. 4632. You know Mr. Paton, your inspector at Fremantle?—Not inspector, but superintendent. 4633. Mr. Paton thoroughly understands his work?—Yes, he is a very conscientious officer and does his work very well. 4634. When you were acting for Dreyfus & Co. did you ever complain about his appointment?—I do not think I ever complained about his appointment, but about him being hypercritical when examining wheat stacks. 4635. Was he in the same position then as now?—No, he is not examining wheat stacks now. 4636. About being hypercritical. Mr. Paton was keeping you up to the standard in the same way as he is keeping others up to the standard now?—He is not in a position to criticise anyone at the present time, except an odd truck of wheat may get into Fremantle. He is looking after the 1916-17 stacks and looking after the shipment of flour. 4637. When as inspector he criticised the matter in which Dreyfus & Co. and others handled the wheat he was in the same position as he is in regard to the Westralian Farmers. They were all in the one boat, may I say?—Exactly so. 4638. Therefore, the whole lot complained of his action?—We made reference on one or two occasions where he criticised. 4639. I suppose you noticed where Mr. Murray complained and to strengthen his argument he said Mr. Keys complained about Mr Paton's appointment as well?—I do not think I complained about his appointment; it was not within my province to complain about his appointment. The reason Mr. Paton was placed at Fremantle at present was that when I took charge, knowing Mr Paton's hypercritical nature, and knowing that the Westralian Farmers should have every opportunity of making success, I took Mr. Paton off the country work and put him at Fremantle, because I knew that if there was any fault to find he would find it. 4640. He is a better officer for that work. You could rely on him?—He is to far on the crictical side. He did not allow for the fact that people handled large quantities of wheat and that conditions in the country