State to consider those abnormal freights and save as much in the shape of extra cargo now going into bags, and also inferior wheat, and so meet the outlay involved in installing the bulk system?—It would be a question of equation—the extra cost of storage as against the saving you have referred to.

4890. By the CHAIRMAN: We have it in evidence from one who claims to have had 15 years' experience in wheat, that he gets more for his wheat in bags than he would get for it in bulk. You, who have not had that experience, I suppose, would not deny that—Why ask me the question?

4891. I note on the file that since Parliament has thrown out the Metcalf agreement, a communication was sent to Mr. Pearse, at Melbourne, to ascertain whether he could get the services of an engineer. The telegram was from Mr. Baxter and read— In view undesirability lose services Metcalfs on bulk storage, could you ascertain from them if Carter, or equivalent engineer, could be spared and would accept salaried position as engineer in charge for a period one, two or three years, whichever most suitable to them and on what terms. Mr. Pearse replied from Melbourne two days later, on the 31st May, as follows:— I received your wire re securing Metcalf's services on terms of yearly engagement, but as Mr. Carter will not return from Sydney before to-morrow I shall not be able to advise you before Monday, third prox. Am hopeful coming to some agreement as owing to W.A. going on with the silo construction Metcalfs have sent out another assistant and it is just possible you may be able secure his services. I have seen this gentleman's credentials and his experience has been very varied in every department of silo work. Were you consult about this matter? I do not see any memo, from you on the file with regard to it?—I do not think that telegram was referred to me.

4892. I notice you complain that Mr. Pearse was sent to Melbourne without your being consulted, and that you wished to be relieved of the position of chairman of the Wheat Board?—Yes, as regards the latter.

4893. That proves conclusively that the Wheat Department were not considering your position as Engineer-in-Chief?—They are quite independent.

4894. Do you think it advisable that a new department like this should be brought into existence without the assistance of expert advice such as which can be given to them by the Public Works Department, especially in matters of this kind?—All questions of constructional work should be dealt with by the Works Department, and that has been practically arranged.

4895. Consider the difficulty which was experienced, and the noise which was made regarding a prior contract, which was initiated during your absence, do you not think that the Government would be warranted in avoiding that kind of thing in the future?—Yes; it is all settled now.

4896. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Mr. Pearse is one of your officers. Is his salary a charge against your department all the time?—Yes, but we make a counter charge against the Wheat Scheme and we get a paid a percentage on the work we are carrying out. Mr. Pearse is in my department and he has a seat on the Wheat Marketing Board.

4897. So that if the Minister decides to send him to Melbourne you should be consulted?—Yes, as I was.

4898. By the CHAIRMAN: Mr. Allen has asked you a question about the estimates which were prepared. I notice in these estimates which were prepared under your supervision that you provide for a scheme of five million bushels for the Fremantle zone, and that it was your intention in 1916 to go on with it. You also provided for the scheme for the whole State. I notice under the proposed agreement with Metcalf & Co. at that time that on the scheme for five million bushels the cost of the plans would only be £2,964, and supervision £3,720, a total expenditure of £6,684. The altered agreement increases that expenditure considerably, does it not?—Yes; the storage capacity at Fremantle was very considerably increased.

4899. I am going on the cost of £246,000. The total cost of the whole scheme as presented to Parliament was about £280,000?—That is the amount allocated by the Federal Government for silo storage only.

4900. Under the new agreement Metcalf had to provide tracings for more work than the Government would be able to entertain at present?—Yes, to provide the plans not only for the storage silos but also for the bulk handling scheme, which would not be gone on with at present.

4901. So we would have to pay them a lump sum of £9,000 and two per cent. on the cost of that £280,000, which has now jumped to £391,000?—Yes.

4902. Under the first agreement on an expenditure of £246,000 we would pay only £6,684?—Yes. But the estimate of £246,000 included sidings and alterations to rolling stock. The £2,964 would be only on £166,000 expenditure.

4903. Under the present agreement the first outlay would be considerably higher than under that agreement?—Yes, but Metcalf's did not agree to the first proposal.

4904. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Still, it was your estimate?—Yes, paying them a percentage on the work as they did it. This expenditure was based on a percentage for just the plans we asked them to prepare at the time.

4905. By the CHAIRMAN: After they refused to sign that you had a further conference with them at which it was decided to have the three per cent. basis but certain elevators were specified?—Yes.

4906. The £9,000 in connection with the ten copies of blue prints was of later date?—Yes.

4907. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: It was equivalent to three per cent. on £300,000?—Yes, it includes the full drawings for the terminal elevator at Fremantle and four type country elevators.

4908. But that estimate included those complete elevators?—Yes.

4909. So £9,000 works out much more than three per cent. on the cost of those elevators?—Yes, but the terminal elevator at Fremantle which was to have a capacity of 500,000 bushels it is now proposed to increase to 1½ million bushels; that is where the increased cost comes in.

4910. On top of that, if they did any other work they were still to be paid a percentage on the plans?—Yes, so long as they were not the type we had.

4911. By the CHAIRMAN: In view of the size of our present harvest do you think a 1½ million bushel elevator at Fremantle warranted in normal times?—No.

4912. Then we would be spending money to an extent not warranted for bulk handling?—Not for bulk handling.

4913. If the position were placed before you would you, from an engineering point of view, recommend that the bulk handling scheme be proceeded with?—Not at present.

4914. Mr. Pearse, in his evidence, pointed out that the only recommendation he makes is in regard to weevil?—I am not an authority on weevil.

4915. Did you ever go into the question of insuring the timber silos?—I believe I did make inquiries. I do not remember the result.

4916. It was not sufficient to prevent you from recommending wooden silos?—No.

4917. Would there be much danger from fire?—No.

4918. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Do they have many fires in the Canadian elevators?—Their timber is much more inflammable than ours. They do have fires, and they are now going in for reinforced concrete construction in lieu of timber.

4919. By Mr. BROWN: Do they have a special bulk ships doing the trade in Canada?—They have all classes of ships in the trade.

4920. Is much expenditure involved in altering the ships to meet bulk requirements?—No.

   (The witness retired.)