had it not been for the co-operative farmers having a vital interest in the wheat, the losses would have been heavy. In the Eastern States, in handling old wheat the acquiring agents are allowed 4d. per bag for rebagging and 8d. per bag for re-conditioning. As a matter of fact, the position is this, that when, Mr. Keys refuses to pay more than 1½d. per bag for the country siding service he gets a penny halfpenny's worth of work—and the Scheme debit up the Pool with the losses. Why not make a contract, as we suggested, for the whole job—care, railing, supply of bags, twine, tallying, shipping etc., the contractor to carry then risk and responsibility—the whole job, "lock, stock, and barrel"? The farmer would then know what he was really paying. At the present time, I defy the Scheme to tell him. Compare the Scheme's squeeze in regard to the cleaning up of 18-month old stacks with the Imperial Government allowance of them of ⅜ of a penny per bushel per month for care of stacks alone. And yet Mr. keys thinks 1½d. per bag a fair price for cleaning up a stack, including re-bagging and re-conditioning. It is an absolute sweating of the lumpers, and contrary to the best interests of the Pool. The acquiring agents in Victoria for loading up ex stack in March new season's wheat received in January (two months before) received a penny half penny per bushel, and for wheat delivered ex stack after 15th March one penny and seven-eighths per bushel. The comparisons are so outrageous, Mr. Chairman, that the co-operative farmers look to the Commission to tell them frankly what in their opinion Mr. Keys' game has been. Season's Handling, 1917-18.—I also wish to refer to certain statements made by Mr. Keys (4123/7) in which he says that the co-operative companies employ inexperienced secretaries. At 95 per cent. of our sidings last season we had experienced men. Even assuming, however that Mr. Keys' statements were correct, I would refer you to the case of Messrs. Thomas & Company, who some years ago engaged as business manager for their big mill undertaking at Northam, Mr. Sibbald, who until then, I understand, had no previous experience of milling. The fact that he had organising capacity apparently justified his appointment. His capacity in this connection was apparently held in very high esteem by the Hon. Mr. Mitchell, who was in a position to judge. Even assuming that it were true that at the bulk of the sidings we have inexperienced wheat men, which I know to be incorrect, I am not satisfied that Mr. Keys' contention is sound. It should never be lost sight of that the local co-operative companies have a very real and vital interest in their wheat. Each company has its small board of directors which meet frequently, many of these men devoting a considerable amount of time and work purely honorarily. Mr. Keys seems to class a wheat grower as an inexperienced wheat man. True, a wheat grower might not know anything about shipping, but for practical knowledge of country siding operations Mr. Keys will find a small board of wheat grower directors very hard to beat. They have had to protect their wheat from rainstorms in the paddock. They know by experience the cost of labour rebagging, and exactly how wheat gets damaged and how to prevent it. In suggesting that a farmer knows nothing about wheat, Mr. Keys might as well say that a baker knows nothing about flour because he is not a miller. I can assure the Commission that the determination of the majority of farmers is that, now that they have realised the advisability of taking a hand in their own affairs, they are determined to see the business done and done well. Mr. Keys laments the fact that at some sidings old wheat buyers were unemployed. At a place like Dowerin, where there were formerly seven or eight buyers, we could not possibility find billets for the lot. I understand our representatives employed two of them and that they were satisfactory. Unfortunately, however, the sidings that occasioned us greatest difficulty both in general handling and in book-keeping were handled by old wheat buyers, and in two of the worst instances, I regret to say, they were old Dreyfus men. Under Mr. Keys' reply to 4127/9 the Commission have an instance of the tendency of Mr. Keys to enforce conditions upon other people such as he would not operate himself. I refer to his proposal to retain power under the coming season's agreement to dismiss sub-agents. There is no justification whatsoever for such a proposal. If the acquiring agent has a definite contract with definite liabilities under that contract, the contractor should be allowed to carry out his work without interference, but should be debited with any loss which might accrue in his handling. In this connection I might say that unprecedented and unwarranted interference has been the partial cause of our trouble during the past season.

5084. By the CHAIRMAN: I see you attach the whole action in regard to the drawing up of the new conditions on which you were asked to quote on Mr. Keys?—The letter came to us over his name.

5085. But you would not take, as a manager of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., because a letter went under your name, the whole of the responsibility?—I have got to do it but we cannot blame Mr. Keys in a matter of policy.

5086. This agreement was decided on by the Board and by the Board's instructions you were asked for quotations under the agreement. Consequently you cannot blame Mr. Keys entirely in a matter of that description?—If the Board did it, the Board should take the blame, but we do not know what the Board does. We see a matter come forward under the name of the manager and we may be somewhat biassed, and if we are, we have this evidence which we are giving to justify our feeling of doubt about these matters. We believe his hand is in it. Some of the conditions in the agreement are extremely harsh; just what we would expect from Mr. Keys a man who makes you an offer to do a job and asks for more than he expects to get.

5087. If I were a member of the Board and you were the manager and you submitted certain conditions and I approved of them, I would consider myself equally liable?—I agree with that. The Board must take responsibility for anything done in their name.

5088. I admit the conditions are strong, but at the same time we must be fair to Mr. Keys?—I have every desire to be so.

5089. I wished to draw your attention to the fact, because all the condemnation might go on to Mr. Keys latterly?—I am in that respect like Mr. Keys; my matter is prepared for me by my staff, who know all the files, but every sentiment expressed therein I take full responsibility for.

5090. You have perhaps not taken the same action as Mr. Keys. You will not allow your men to have an autograph stamper of your name and send out letters which you know nothing about?—There are times when documents must go out from an officer in the name of the manager who cannot be expected to see every one. We send quotes from time to time to our branches and they go out in our names.

5091. The person who signs signs for you?—Yes; no one signs my name. If my name appears it is per somebody else. There has been a gradual merging of the State Wheat Scheme from a supervisory to an executive body. Formerly the Scheme's officers confined their attention to ascertaining whether the acquiring agents handled the business in such a way as to obviate loss to the Pool, and that if so the amount was assessed and charged, but they never attempted to interfere in matters of detail. They dealt simply with matters of policy and efficient handling. Unfortunately, during the last season the number of the Scheme's inspectors was increased. and they assumed or were allotted an altogether different function, interfering in such matters as the trucking of stacks, wages being paid to men, etc., and in a good many instances their instructions were quite contrary to the arrangements that had been made with us by Mr. Keys. I wish to cite one instance only—As already stated we urged the Scheme to arrange for roofing at certain sidings and to concentrate all trucks on unroofed stacks, but they appeared to deem this course unnecessary. Corrigin Co-operative Company advised that about the 4th April, Inspector Sabine instructed them to truck up to a certain section, but no further. After the inspector left, however, it was apparently found that there was no section at the part indicated by him, as the stack had been bound right through. On the following day—5th April—our inspector arrived and naturally instructed the Co-operative secretary to keep on trucking. Up to this date, the negotiations with the Scheme re roofing had not been re-opened.