for one month only out of the twelve. I therefore built it to carry anything. The silo I would propose to erect would store the wheat better than the Government do to-day. The Government do not handle the wheat as well as I would handle my own. I keep 2,000 bags of wheat on my place, and it is on a platform three feet off the ground. The weevils are not in it, the shed is not enclosed even. If I put a better cover over it the wheat would be better stored than the Government store it.

4992. You have referred to the building of a silo to take 10,000 bags. The evidence given before us is that it is necessary to remove wheat at some of the stacks to clean it. In your case, would it not be necessary to build two silos so that the wheat might be changed from one to the other?—I do not suppose I would be called on to do that any more than if it was on the railway siding. I deliver my goods sound and well stored. What else should I do?

4993. The position is whether we should build silos to protect wheat from weevil?—We should have had them long ago, and we should have made more use of our jarrah. If I were to put up a 10,000-bushel silo, I submit I would be putting up better storage for this coming year than the Wheat Pool will put up. Suppose I only did that, what would there be wrong about it? There is no sound objection to it.

4994. The cost for inspection would be more?—I do not think so. The first examination would be something like 85 per cent. cheaper than under the old system, and then one or two or perhaps three inspections during the year would be sufficient.

4995. If you put it in one shed only in bulk, to keep the weevil out of it, it would be necessary to remove it?—We should require to have three spaces.

4996. At least 25 per cent. of the bulk storage would have to remain empty?—Only while dealing with the weevil.

4997. And when it came to converting the silos to a bulk handling scheme we should have considerably more storage than necessary?—Yes.

4998. But if the farmers were allowed to erect private silos it would relive the State of a lot of expenditure?—Yes, and give the farmer more storage with which to steady the price of other commodities.

4999. Even under bulk handling it will be necessary for the farmer to have storage in which to place his wheat until it can be forwarded?—Certainly, There will not be more than one-third of the State's wheat in silos at one time.

5000. By Mr. HARRISON: Would not the weather conditions be better than the present storage, sites for keeping the wheat free from weevil?—Undoubtedly. Before ever Professor Lefroy came to Australia my brother foresaw the necessity for keeping the wheat off the ground.

5001. By the CHAIRMAN: He was providing for a small quantity?—Yes, but after all the total harvest is store in small quantities. Under my proposed scheme in the first year only sufficient storage for that year's crop would be provided. In the second year it would be for the farmer to say whether he would put up further storage for the new crop, or deliver it approximately.

5002. By Mr. HARRISON: You would not provide for more than one year's crop?—It would be economically a bad proposition to provide more in one year. The cost of the bags would go far towards the provision of permanent storage.

5003. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: What you want is permission to store wheat on your own farm and yet secure the advance under the Pool?—That is the whole thing in a nutshell.

5004. By the CHAIRMAN: Under that system the Government would require a bulk handling scheme before they could shift that wheat, alternatively they would have to re-bag it?—They have to re-bag much of it at present.

5005. Have you ever been at Fremantle while wheat was being shipped?—Yes.

5006. You must have seen that a large percentage of the bags out of stack go direct into the ship?—Yes, but a large number are broken and the men are patching all the time. And in any case it is a very different proposition from shifting it from Spencer's Brook to the ship.

5007. By Mr. HARRISON: Under your system the bag would be in good condition?—Exactly.

5008. By the CHAIRMAN: We are told that it is necessary that the wheat should be shifted every two or three months?—I do not see the wheat held by the Pool being shifted about.

5009. It is said the wheat must have air?—Weevil can be killed by excluding the air from them. I tested that years ago with a bottle full of weevilly wheat. The weevils increased while the wheat lasted, but after it disappeared they became nothing but a caked black mass.

5010. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Was the bottle stoppered while they were increasing?—Yes, and they lived.

5011. By the CHAIRMAN: You are of opinion that all the acquiring firms were about on a level in point of experience of handling wheat as it has been handled under the Pool?—Yes, all the experience has been gained since the inauguration of the Pool. There is nothing very difficulty about it, it is a question merely of foresight. The ready application of iron and proper housing would have saved a lot of the wheat. Careful storage is not devolving upon the agents to any great extend while we have these big centres. A lot of trouble would have been avoided if the manager could have made up his quickly; he would give an order and then countermand it.

5012. Do you not think he has been blamed for much that he never did?—Perhaps he has, but if the Westralian Farmers had been given definite orders they could have got through much more effectually than they did.

5013. By. Mr. BROWN: If a commercial board with executive powers should be recommended for future years, who do you think should make the appointments to the board?—There should be an Act providing for that.

5014. But who would make the appointments?—I think it should be decided that the executive consist of so many farmers' representatives and so many Government representatives. The interest is common, mutual; and both parties are entitled to have a say. A great deal has been said about the audit. I think the Scheme should have a practical auditor. The Auditor General is not the man for the Scheme; he is too busy and he has to take the initials of the various officials to expenditure, etcetera, as granted.

5015. By Mr. HARRISON: Your only complaint with regard to dockage is that the dockage here is not uniform with that in the other States?—Yes. This being an Australian Pool, I wanted Western Australia to be on the same basis as any other State.

5016. Do you believe that there should be a running sample dockage from the farmer?—I think some arrangement should be made so that when so many bags of superior to f.a.q. come in, and then a few bags of inferior, the practical Pool aspect of it should be considered. Mr. Keys said that if the two were mixed, it was all right. If he knows so much, could he not assume it? He said that in a letter which, I think, the Commission saw. If the wheat a man delivers would pass the f.a.q. standard of the Pool, I say he should be paid for it. If, on the other hand, his wheat is not on the whole f.a.q.—I am not referring to the seconds which come out of the machine and which should not go into the Pool at all—he should not be paid for it.

5017. As a practical farmer, delivering wheat to the Pool, you agree that it would be necessary to take samples of all loads as they came in?—Yes; but bulk handling would obviate that very largely.

5018. There would be a certain proportion of inferior wheat under the conditions you have mentioned. Would you eliminate that inferior wheat from the Pool altogether?—Yes; everything that came through as seconds.

5019. When a small portion of the wheat delivered by a farmer is of inferior quality, you would allow that to go into the Pool?—There should be some arrangement made by which the man who brought in, say, 8,000 bags of which only 20 or 30 were slightly under while the remainder was over, would have it accepted as a fair admixture. But I think there should be some standard. I do believe in dockage. In 1914, for instance, there were several crops that would not pass any f.a.q. standard. I do not wish to suggest how the dockage is to be arranged; but if I grow 10,000 bags of wheat, of which