4777. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: In Canada no elevator would have grain in it, or a sufficient length of time to provide a test?—No. The grain is not stored for any length of time.

4778. By the CHAIRMAN: If, as the advisory board claims, they will be able to clean weevil by use of the storage silos, it will be necessary that one in every group of four silos shall remain empty to enable the wheat to be shifted?—I should think so.

4779. It means providing one-fourth more storage capacity than would be necessary under normal conditions?—Yes. I presume it would be possible to sub-divide the silos, so that only one portion would have to remain empty.

4780. You have not gone into that phase of the question?—No. I have not considered the treatment of weevil.

4781. It might mean considerably increased cost?—Possibly.

4782. How would the cost of erecting silos in Western Australia compare with that of Canada?—Our costs would be higher. I estimated that a country elevator of 25,000 bushels, constructed of timber in Western Australia, would cost £2,000 complete, including all machinery, while in Canada the cost would be £1,500.

4783. Do you think timber silos would meet our requirements?—For country elevators, yes.

4784. You would advise timber as against concrete for country silos?—I think so, particularly at present with cement and reinforcing metal so costly.

4785. What is approximately the increased cost in concrete under our present conditions as a result of the war?—Cement is from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. higher in cost, and steel work is 100 per cent. higher. Some steel is almost unprocurable.

4786. You have not gone into the question as to what the total additional cost would be?—No.

4787. After your investigations in Canada would you agree with the evidence which we have before us that if the storage elevators were erected now, before they could be used as a paying proposition on a bulk handling scheme, a large amount of the capital expenditure would have to be struck off?—Yes.

4788. You have not taken a great deal of interest so far as the Board is concerned in regard to the systems proposed here?—No.

4789. In other words, the Board has not sought your advice as Engineer-in-Chief in the way they might have done?—I prefer not to answer that question.

4790. I notice in your report a system which should be adopted in regard to the erection of these, elevators, that is, to put bores down, prepare plans and specifications of the various sites proposed, submit them to the different firms who will erect them, and ask them to submit quotes and plans. Do you still think that would be the best way?—It is rather difficult to reply just as present, when the Government have practically entered into an arrangement with a Canadian firm having business in Australia.

4791. Would you do it to-day if you yourself were carrying it out?—If I had to start inaugurating a bulk handling system I would stick to my original recommendation. I certainly acquiesced in the proposal to employ Metcalf & Co., for reasons that were stated at the time.

4792. As a matter of fact the Government entered into preliminary arrangements with Metcalf & Co. through Mr. Cox, the reinforced concrete man in Melbourne, as a sub-agent, without consulting you in the matter?—Yes.

4793. And you had to tender the best advice possible in regard to any agreement which was entered into at the request of the Government?—Yes.

4794. But the action which was taken at the time was against the advice tendered in your report?—Yes.

4795. You interviewed other firms in England in regard to the matter. I notice that the present Minister for Works wrote a memo. to the Attorney General on the 23rd November, 1917. He stated that no doubt there were other capable engineers who knew this business as well as Metcalf & Co. did. This department does not know of any, but if time permitted inquiries could be made to ascertain. The Engineer-in-Chief, from his own personal inquiries and local knowledge obtained when in Canada, does know of Metcalf & Co., and their reputation for knowledge of the work and capability for carrying it out is good. The personal character of the firm is regarded as high, and their integrity is respected. As a matter of fact the departmental officials were fully aware that there were other firms equally able to advise so far as the construction of elevators were concerned?—Personally I did not know of any other designing firms. I knew of other firms who would design and supply machinery, but I did not know of any designing and supervising firms of engineers carrying on work in the way that Metcalf & Co. were doing.

4796. That is as consulting engineers only?—Yes.

4797. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Are they purely consulting engineers?—I understand that they also supervised the erection of works.

4798. On the Manchester Ship Canal, for instance?—I did not know that they had carried out the construction of elevators on the canal, but I knew that they had designed the original elevator there.

4799. By the CHAIRMAN: They claim that they have carried out other works on a commission basis?—I understand that they carried out works for the Harbour Trust at Montreal.

4800. The departmental officials were aware that there were other firms doing the work as well as Metcalf & Co., I refer to the work of erecting elevators?—There are many firms who erect elevators.

4801. The Minister would have found that out if he had looked at the files. Would you be surprised to know that there are other firms in England who claim to have erected 90 per cent. of these works in the world?—I know that Spencer & Sons & Simons have done a lot of work in Russia and the Argentine.

4802. Was it brought under your notice that a protest was lodged by the Agent General against the work being proceeded with at present?—No.

4803. You never had an opportunity of view the protest in order to show the work they had carried out?—No.

4804. That was not submitted to you as Engineer-in-Chief?—Mr. Milne wrote about a protest. I do not know of any other letter than his.

4805. You held with the complaint of Mr. Milne?—Yes.

4806. I see that in your report you stated that if the bulk handling system was adopted in Western Australia there would be a slight gain to the farmers in your opinion at that time?—Yes. In the appendices of the report there are statements as to the gain under bulk handling system as against the handling in bags. The difference was a penny to 1½d.

4807. Did you take into consideration the amount which was returned for the value of the bags after the wheat was taken out in England?—Yes.

4808. In Appendix E you have provided a sum of 7½d. for bag at Fremantle for sewing, handling, etc. 2½d., and have provided 1¼d. for bags sold as wheat?—Yes.

4809. And you provided for the bag when returned empty from the elevator at Fremantle?—Yes.

4810. There is no allowance for the amount received for the bag at, say, London?—This is dealing with the wheat from the farmer's point of view. He would get no credit for the bag in London.

4811. I see that in Appendix F you do give a credit of 2d. for the bag?—Yes; that first statement is a comparison between shipping of bagged wheat, and bagging wheat on farm to terminal elevator, there to be dealt with in bulk. The other statement is a comparison between the cost of shipping to foreign markets in bags and in bulk.

4812. You allowed twopence for the bag there. Under normal conditions that would amount to about 1½d. less than actually obtained for the bags, or a halfpenny per bushel?—Yes. This table would not now correspond with any of the present prices.

4813. You point out that the gain in bulk handling would be 1.16d. per bushel?—Yes.

4814. With regard to your allowance here of 2d. per bag, Mr. Keys told us that under normal conditions the farmer gets about 50 per cent. of the cost of the new bag. To use his own words, if bags were 7s. per dozen here, we would get 3s. 6d. per dozen for them in