London. That would amount to another halfpenny per bushel?—Practically another halfpenny. 4815. And that would reduce the present estimate of 1.16d. to a little over a half penny.

4816. Seeing that it comes down to such a fine point, then, would not the additional cost which would have to be incurred in installing the system under present conditions, entirely wipe out any gain?—There is the gain in the increased price accruing from better samples of grain. To the theoretical saving of 1.16d. there is to be added the indirect saving from prevention of loss of grain and the other items mentioned.

4817. You are aware that one cannot ship only two-thirds in bulk?—Yes. Some say two-thirds, and some say one can ship to within 10 per cent. of the cargo capacity.

4818. The majority of ship owners have replied two-thirds to inquiries made?—From Australia?

4819. Yes, from Australia. So in all probability there would not be much gain to the farmer if bulk handling were adopted?—Not at present.

4820. Really none whatever. How do your storage charges work out in comparison with Canadian charges; would the charges here be higher—Our storage is not under quite the same conditions as that of Canada. There it is all stored in elevators.

4821. But when we have the elevators erected, and suppose we had to keep the wheat here under present conditions?—I have not worked out that storage cost. In the Canadian country elevators they charge for receiving, handling, cleaning, and delivering grain to the railway cars, including insurance against loss by fire and storage for 15 days, 1¾ cents, or ⅞d.; and for each subsequent 30 days storage the charge is ⅜d. per bushel. That is in the elevator.

4822. If the storage were based even on those rates, would it not run to a pretty fair amount?—Yes. It would be too high.

4823. And then with the increased cost over the cost in Canada, if our farmers were charged storage to meet the cost, it would be more than they could afford on the price of the wheat ?—Of course, it would all depend on the length of time the wheat was stored and what the farmer was charged.

4824. Have you attended many meetings of the Committee at which this question was gone into?—No.

4825. You could not tell us whether the Committee have ever taken into consideration this position regarding storage or wheat to protect it from weevil; regarding the increased cost of handling?—I have never discussed it with them, and I do not know whether they have considered it.

4826. Then, as far as you know, they are working on supposition, without having gone into the matter thoroughly?—I could not say that. I simply do not know.

4827. By. Hon. J. F. ALLEN: I understand from the files that the estimates for the bulk handling storage scheme given to Parliament by the Minister were prepared by you?—Some of the estimates, yes.

4828. And I notice that Mr. Baxter in evidence stated, answering a question of mine, that the Government had got all the plans. Have the department plans of elevators on which they based their estimates at the time?—We have plans in the department.

4829. And are those the plans on which you based your estimates at the time?— No. The estimates were based at per bushel of capacity.

4830. Irrespective of size of the bins?—No. On standard sizes.

4831. I notice here the minutes of a conference between Messrs. Sutton and Pearse and Metcalf's representative, on the 16th July, 1917, giving a list of country sidings at which it was suggested elevators should be erected. Would that be the basis of your estimate?—We had estimates from Metcalf's people as to silos also.

4832. But when the figures were given to Parliament the Minister stated they were given on your estimates, and you must have had some basis for those estimates?—Yes. We had silos of type capacity, on which the estimates were based.

4833. And you also had a schedule of the different country sidings. Is this (produced) likely to be to schedule you worked on ; that is Metcalf's schedule prepared at the conference you speak of?—It is very likely.

4834. I notice in your report, and we have been told the same thing by Mr. Pearse, that the bin unit which was to be adopted in this State was one of 40,000 bushels capacity. Would that be the unit which you have taken into consideration in framing your estimates?—Not necessarily. There were silos of different unit capacity taken.

4835. Apparently, according to Mr. Pearse's evidence, 40,000 bushels was the unit adopted by the department for estimating purposes?—There were silos of different capacities on which the estimates were based.

4836. But, according to Mr. Pearse's evidence, the different capacities were to be made up by groups of bins of a 40,000 bushels unit?—That is dealing with storage of wheat; not the bulk handling.

4837. But the bulk handling Bill introduced was intended for that purpose, and your estimate was based, I believe, on that idea?—On the bulk handling idea ?

4838. As submitted to Parliament?—Which estimate do you refer to?

4839. In introducing the Bill, Mr. Robinson stated that he had got confirmation from the Engineer-in-Chief, who had thoroughly gone into a matter had had given him the assurance that the figures were correct. Is that the statement correct?—I certainly checked any estimates that I gave to Mr. Robinson, and they were, as far as my knowledge goes, correct.

4840. But you would have them based on some suit unit or some plan or some system?—Yes. We based the estimate on a terminal elevator at Fremantle of a certain capacity, and on so many country elevators of varying capacities. The 40,000 bushel capacity was, as a fact, arrived at in connection with the erection of concrete storage silos, which were to be used afterwards in connection with the bulk handling scheme.

4841. And consequently they would be designed to fit in with that scheme?—Yes.

4842. So that if they were erected as 490,000 bushel units in the country, it would ultimately mean that our country elevators would have to be 40,000 bushels units as per that schedule?—As far as the storages were concerned; but when the working houses would be erected and bins provided these would not of necessity be 40,000 units.

4843. But take one siding?—The 40,000 unit is for storage, and the number at present provided as storage silos might be quite in excess of the number required for the bulk handling scheme, and therefore should not be taken wholly into consideration for the bulk handling, and should not be debited against bulk handling later on. They are simply emergency storage silos.

4844. But that was the estimate given to Parliament. I understand, on the authority of the Engineer-in-Chief. That is what Mr. Robinson stated to Parliament. That is correct?—For a certain bushel capacity storage, yes.

4845. If Mr. Pearse said that the whole of the bins which it was purposed at this time to erect for bulk storage were on a 40,000 bushel capacity, I take it that will be correct?—For the storage capacity.

4846. Wherever they happen to be erected in the country?—Yes. Originally it was 50,000 bushels and they reduced it to 40,000 bushels.

4847. As engineer, you would agree that that bin of a capacity of 40,000 bushels being concrete would be more economical than divided into a number of bins?—Yes. 4848. If we introduced the bulk handling system into Australia ultimately the present bins would be erected with an eye to that purpose; they should be erected in such a way as they could be used economically as a bulk handling scheme?—Yes.

4849. I understand in Canada the country elevator is fitted with a number of bins so that the grades may be kept separate?—Yes.

4850. If at a country siding there was one huge bin of a capacity of 40,000 bushels, that would be useless for the purpose?—Unless you sub-divided it afterwards.

4851. Have you ever heard of a round bin being sub-divided afterwards?—No.

4852. And if sub-divided the cost would be greater?—Yes.