Wheat (1) - Part 3

Image 226
image 27 of 100

This transcription is complete

the seeking excuse for that omission at the expense of the lumpers—that they would strike if tarpaulins were put down—and regarding dirty trucks coming through from the country, could not be coloured by any letter of the Fremantle Harbour Trust. On the 5th April, 1917—15 months before I took over at the wharf—I wrote as follows:

Westralian Farmers D stack, North Wharf, said to contain approximately 12,000 bags.—With the idea of augmenting immediate supplies of milling wheat for Ockerby & Co., Ltd., and being informed that above consisted of f.a.q., together with Ockerby's head miller I made inspection on the 3rd instant, and found it a very mixed lot of f.a.q. and inferior of various grades. Before inspection I understood that it was an original stack, but inspection soon revealed that whatever portion was original had been considerably added to by, apparently, numerous dirty trucks from clean-up of country stacks or stack and pick-ups from the North Wharf and vicinity. Bags also, which originally contained f.a.q. had been topped up with dirty grades, or vice versa, so much so that Ockerby's miller refused to have anything to do with it as a milling proposition for other than second-grade flour, which is not what they require at present. Even for latter use, a certain amount of culling would be necessary.

There is a stack of 12,000 bags that is so mixed up, dirty wheat on the top of good wheat, or good wheat on the top of dirty wheat, that it is absolutely unfit for milling into flour.

4923. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Is that stack there now?—No. That was a 1915-16 season stack.

4924. What became of it?—I suppose shipped; I cannot say. It would be shipped in the ordinary way as f.a.q. cargo. A further letter written on the 4th June, 1917, says—

Loading of s.s. "Australmead" by Westralian Farmers, Ltd. The Westralian Farmers loaded this day in above steamer many trucks of grain in damaged and wet condition owing to exposure in recent rains. Their Mr. Cohen was supposed to be engaged in culling same out as they were taken from trucks and placed on gantry, but excepting for appearance of performance, he might just as well have been at the other end of the wharf. A boy was also stationed alongside to brush off signs of damage, but he missed far more than he caught and he could not be expected to do otherwise under prevailing conditions. In any case it would have taken an active man all his time to do the work with any degree of thoroughness.

It was said we were stacking wet wheat at Fremantle, and in my evidence I stated that I had seen equally wet wheat to portion of that referred to when first received by us, but subjected to drying process before being stacked, go in a ship loaded by the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. There is the letter that reports it dated 4th June, 1917, and it also speaks of their Mr. Cohen, who was also examining the wheat at the side of the ship. Mr. Cohen is the man who writes and says that my evidence is an exaggeration and distortion of real facts. Mr. Cohen was the man in charge at North Fremantle and Fremantle generally for the Westralian Farmers, and he openly admitted to everybody with whom he came in contact that when he took charge that he knew absolutely nothing about the business, and did not know wheat from barley, and yet he was the man who was placed there to supervise and manage the shipping of wheat, etc., for the Westralian Farmers, and he is the man who says my evidence is an exaggeration and distortion of the real facts. This letter could not be coloured by any development that has taken place this year. On the 25th June, 1917, I wrote concerning a further parcel of damaged pick-up wheat ex-Westralian Farmers, D1 stack, North Wharf. It is as follows:—

On the 22nd inst. the Westralian Farmers' foreman applied to me for a permit to rail approximately 200 bags of damaged grain to E shed. I refused to comply with the request and gave the following reasons:—(1) Much of it was in a heated and smellful condition. (2) They had disregarded my instructions to refrain from bagging rotten wheat unfit for any consumption. (3) We have already had the health inspector at us at Fremantle re wheat in E shed, and are being pushed by the Military authorities to remove that already there. Finally I instructed them to erect a tilt covering over the wheat in question, so that it might receive the maximum volume of air and necessary protection pending removal. In connection with removal of damaged wheat to E shed, I have sound reasons for stating that the principal anxiety of above company appeared to be to make up weight without regard to its fate, or ultimate loss, occasioned to the Pool by cost of freight to E shed, handling charges and cartage to rubbish tip, or ultimate dumping at sea. Similar policy has been followed in the country with evidence still in existence showing where the Pool has paid freight on practically mother earth to North Wharf on country stations. Such evidence is daily disappearing, but an inspection of Gardiner Bros.' present stocks in Roe-street, Perth, will reveal its presence to-day as received by them from North Wharf some little time since. As the Westralian Farmers have, by their performance, refused to assist us by carrying out our wishes, I can only recommend that they be instructed to dispose of the two parcels herein referred to on their own responsibility to best advantage, for no credit can be attached to any Pool officer engaged in such task.

That letter is written on the 25th June, 1917, and, I think, will confirm the evidence I gave with regard to the wheat which the Westralian Farmers send to E shed and again could not be covered by any incident of the present year. There is just one little comment I should like to make. I say, "Without regard to its fate, or ultimate loss occasioned to the Pool by cost of freight to E shed, handling charges and cartage to rubbish tip, or ultimate dumping at sea." At that time I was afraid that we might be forced to load one of those lighters or launches with the stinking wheat and cart it out to sea and dump it, but that procedure was never necessary because we mixed it off with other better quality grain, making a Scotch mixture with it and found a buyer for it. I mentioned the "Kangaroo" in my evidence, and I said there was a loss I estimated at the time of nine tons through the wharf. My letter here says approximately six to eight tons in weight as the maximum, but I will explain the discrepancy when I have read the letter.

4925. By the CHAIRMAN : The letter I referred to said nine tons?—I said nine tons in my evidence.

4926. I may tell you Mr. Murray withdrew any remarks he made in regard to it?—It was up to him; he was on a very rotten wicket, with all due respect to yourself.

4927. That is the report to Mr. Keys (handling to witness)?—This report is dated the 14th March, 1918. My original letter dealing with the "Kangaroo" was dated the 13th October, 1916.

4928. That was prior to the Harbour Trust complaint being lodged?—The complaint was not lodged until February, 1916.

Loading of the s.s. "Kangaroo" by Westralian Farmers. I estimate that wheat lost by the Westralian Farmers through the wharf decking whilst loading the s.s. "Kangaroo" would equal approximately 6 to 8 tons in weight as a minimum. Much of this could have been saved by more efficient handling, and practically the whole of it, if the decking had been in any way roughly caulked with old sacking or screens laid under the stack prior to erection. I am advised that Dalgety's is the only firm that supplied the latter. Owing to the combination of irregular, faulty stacking and defective roof, followed by musty grain, being allowed to tumble over into stack as latter fell down and became mixed with sound quality, the volume of pick-ups or sweepings is greatly in excess of that necessary.

That letter is written on the 13th October, 1916. In my report concerning the "Austral Brook" I mention 9 tons as against 6 to 8 tons in weight. It would have been better, in my letter, if I had named the 9 tons hard and fast, but in my desire to minimise the thing as much as possible and yet obtain some remedy, I wrote 6 to 8. The nine is indelibly fixed in my mind as being the