FRIDAY, 2ND AUGUST, 1918. (At Perth.)

Present: Hon. W. C. Angwin, M.L.A. (Chairman). Hon. J. F. Allen, M.L.C. | S. M. Brown, Esq., M.L.A. T. H. Harrison, Esq., M.L.A.

STIRLING TAYLOR, Merchant, Manager of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., sworn and examined:

5058. WITNESS: I have a statement here which contains what I wish to say and which I stand by. I will read it to the Commission. It is as follows:—I have noticed in the evidence given before the Commission that some of the witnesses have reflected upon the work which was performed by the Co-operative Company in the handling of wheat. Of course I am not going to claim that no minor mistakes were made, but surely, when the work was spread over about 307 centres, and many difficulties had necessarily to be overcome, it would be almost humanly impossible to escape from some mistakes. But whatever mistakes were made were of a minor character, and, with the amount of work performed, men would require to be perfect to escape error. As to the evidence given by the last witness, Mr. Keys, I must say that his statements are not correct, and the charges he makes cannot be substantiated. I have had a statement prepared dealing with those charges individually, and will prove that there is no foundation to them. Season 1915-16.—I wish the Commission to bear with me while I briefly touch upon criticism by Mr. Keys (4026) of our operations during the first year of the Pool. An impartial examination of the Scheme records will disclose that our operations were no more inexperienced than were those of the other wheat handling firms. The best methods to adopt to ensure safe and long storage were matters in connection with which no firm had previously had experience, and all were in the same position in this respect. In answer to question 4029 Mr. Keys stated that the breaking down of our 1915-16 stacks had been proved to be more costly than those of other firms. I suggest that the Commission take out the gross cost of the re-bagging and re-conditioning of 1915-16 stacks held in the country by all firms, making same out at a per bushel rate, and we confident that Mr. Keys' statement will be proved as having no foundation. Mr. Keys says that in 1916 season he went out of his way to make his printing available to me. What happened was that I was in negotiation with Messrs. Barnard for printing and they were good enough to suggest that if I used the blocks prepared by them for Messrs. Dreyfus, the job would come in cheaper for both firms. Therefore I mentioned the matter to Mr. Keys, who fell in with the suggestion. The forms of stationery used had to be approved by the Scheme. There has been some evidence given by a Mr. Paton, the Scheme's representative on the wharf. Mr. Paton was outside Inspector in the first year of the Pool. He has made certain astounding allegations against us in regard to nine tons of wheat which we are supposed to have lost when loading the s.s. "Kangaroo," and he also expatiates at some length on other matters. It is not my desire to waste any time whatsoever over Mr. Paton's evidence. Even Mr. Keys who now knows him intimately, does not take him seriously. I claim justification for this from the evidence given by Mr. Keys. I just wish to give an emphatic denial of the statements made by him, and to suggest that if the Commission are not satisfied as to the incorrectness of Mr. Paton's evidence, they call anyone else they like who was present on the wharf during 1915-16 season. They would, I feel sure, get an unbiased statement from Capt. Clark, stevedore. In connection with the 1916-17 season's figures referred to by the Chairman of the Commission under question 4104, in regard to 1916-17 stacks. This statement put Messrs. Dreyfus and Company in a very much better position than they really were. There was a large stack of Dreyfus' at Geraldton which was quite unprotected as late in the season as August. Heavy rains had fallen, and the amount of loss and damage in this large port stack must have been enormous. I suppose it has not yet been discovered. This more than counterbalanced any minor matters at a number of country stacks of the other acquiring agents, which at the time of the Government inspection may have required a little adjustment. Even the critical Government inspector, after his inspection, could not but admit that we had the best port stacks of any firm, namely those at Geraldton, and also the best country siding stack in the State. Mr. Keys admitted in evidence that our Fremantle stacks of 1916-17 were rather better cared for than those of the other firms. As a matter of fact, there was no comparison. When building these stacks we took the precaution of laying tarpaulins on the floor of the wharf before putting down the first layer of bags. This has prevented much wheat getting through the boards into the water, and was a tremendous advantage to the Scheme recently when they loaded a ship ex our stacks. With regard to the 1916-17 wheat remaining at sidings after 31st December, 1917, I wish to reply to certain statements made by Mr. Keys on this matter. Under queries No. 3804 to 3819, regarding handling of inferior wheat, Mr. Keys alleges two sales of wheat without reference to the Scheme, and specifies an instance at Doodlakine and one at Carnamah. At Doodlakine 71 bags were sold at 4s. per bag, this price being net to the Scheme, there being no reductions or set-offs against same other than the price of the bags. It is therefore contended that our having sold this parcel was justified. Fermentation and heating was likely to render the wheat valueless on arrival at Perth. I again refer the Commission to our letter of the 19th June which followed up other correspondence on the same topic. You have that letter, I think; it is the one you found on Mr. Keys' table, but I may perhaps quote it again.

"Re inferior wheat: Consignments via Depots and direct for Auction:—With reference to previous correspondence as in indication of the difficulties under which we are operating at many country sidings, we quote an instance which came under our notice last week at Tammin. Our inspector, in passing through, advised that there was a considerable quantity of sweepings available which were not worth sending down to market, and recommended that same should not be bagged, but that arrangements should be made to cart it away at about 2s. per load. We communicated with Messrs. Dalgety & Company, who approved of our suggestion, and our agent was duly advised. Subsequently, it appears that your inspector came along and instructed our representative to send all of this class of wheat down to Perth, and he therefore acted on the Government inspector's instructions. Our representative writes—

"I don't know whether I did right or not, as it seems that one tells you one thing, and another tells you a different thing. I would like you to tell me who I am to take notice of, and oblige."

We regret to say that this is not the only instance of conflicting instructions having been given by