On the 12th April we wrote Corrigin Co-operative, among others, advising that the Government was again considering the advisability of roofing, requesting them in the meantime to load up any broken sections or lean-tos, but not to break further into the main stack until further advised by us. We also urged that no costs be incurred in case the Scheme might again change their mind. On negotiations with the Scheme being finalised, it was arranged with them on the 23rd April, to roof, among others, Corrigin and Kunjin stacks. On the 30th April, the Scheme requested us to arrange for the roofing material ex old stacks at Pingelly to be consigned to Corrigin. In the meantime Government Inspector Sabine arranged for the roofing of the stacks at Pingelly, which had previously been excluded from the roofing arrangements entered into with the Scheme, and instructed our representative not to rail the material to Corrigin. Inspector Sabine apparently did not make other arrangements to fill Corrigin requirements in material, and we were not advised of his action till later. On the 23rd May, we received the following wire from Corrigin:—" Received orders shift Kunjin and Corrigin stacks. Please arrange specials to supply Kunjin with trucks for 1,000 bags per day." And on the same day (23rd May) also from Corrigin Co-operative:—"Received orders from Scheme's Inspector Sabine shift Corrigin and Kunjin stacks result delay trucks ordered for same." At this stage Kunjin stack was almost completely roofed, and Corrigin stack was partially roofed with all the material our inspector had been able to get sent along ex Wickepin, in view of the Government Inspector's countermanding of the Pingelly material. On receipt of the above wires, we immediately telephoned the Scheme, who indicated that they had not authorised the trucking of these stacks—that Kunjin stack could be railed, but Corrigin roofing was to be completed. We therefore wired the Corrigin Co-operative:—"Scheme agree rail Kunjin, order trucks; if any difficulty getting supplies wire us (stop). Complete roofing Corrigin when stack dry (stop). Who gave orders shift Corrigin. "To which they replied on the 24th May:— "Inspector Sabine ordered Corrigin stack to be shifted. Witnessed requisition for trucks. Men shifting now." To which we replied on the same day:— "Complete roofing Corrigin as advised yesterday—rail Kunjin only. Please carry out our instructions immediately. Refer Sabine to us." This is only a paragraph in the chapter of our experiences of dual control. The result is an account for £20 1s. 6d. claimed by the Corrigin Co-operative against the Scheme in respect of unnecessary rebuilding of stacks and re-handling of bags. The other claim was from Alderside in respect of £19 18s. 3d. referred to already. It is well nigh impossible to describe the difficulties and annoyance as well as loss that dual control occasioned. I also notice that Mr. Keys complains (No. 4129) that there has been trouble on account of co-operative companies having too much territory. Since the inception of the co-operative organisation there has been more devolution and more local control than there has ever been before in the history of wheat buying. This is one of the features which appeal to the farmers under our system. Take the cases of Babakine or Bilbarin, for example, where there are co-operative companies. Formerly the farmer had to go to Bruce Rock or to Corrigin to get interims or to get squared up in connection with any question which might arise. Now the farmer has his local co-operative company at his own siding. These are not isolated instances of this. There are many such cases. The old wheat buyers used to give their agents far too much territory, and we were able to beat them hands down in the first two years of the Pool through our organisation on the principle of local control, and cutting up territory. In 1915-16 season one of the Dowerin agents had territory extending from Dowerin to Kununoppin, controlling 11 sidings. At practically all of them large quantities of wheat were being received. Last year we had seven co-operative companies and one direct agent operating in that area. Mr. Keys complains about Bruce Rock company having had five or six sidings. As a matter of fact they had five, and yet until last year Mr. Keys' Bruce Rock agent was also agent at Quairading, nine sidings distant, and attempted to operate at 11 sidings. I refer to Mr. McDonald, who gave evidence before this Commission. Mr. Keys has complained to the Commission regarding some Co-operatives sub-letting some sidings. What did Mr. McDonald do when he was operating? He could not possibly handle 11 sidings himself. No other course was open to him but to sub-let his sidings. In the area formerly held by Mr. McDonald, for Dreyfus, under Mr. Keys, we now have five local co-operative companies operating. What object has Mr. Keys in misleading you, gentlemen? In questions 4166/7 Mr. Keys suggests that the former sub-agents "did not exactly sub-let." The method he suggests as having been adopted in the two first years of the Pool, namely, that of stationing a wages man to do tallying and weighing, was very rarely indeed employed. On the contrary, agents with large territory purely sub-let their sidings. Of course, it must be borne in mind that Mr. Keys has no experience of West Australian handling in pre-Pool days. One other matter I wish to bring before the Commission is with a view of answering statements made by Mr. Keys in question 4131 in reference to our inspectors. He suggests that only one inspector has had any previous experience in wheat. It seems wretchedly trivial that we should be compelled to waste our time as well as yours in replying to such statements. Of our five inspectors, one was wheat buying for Darling's and for Perth mill (who are looked upon in the trade as the most critical mill in the State) for 9 years, and after that he was inspector for Dalgety & Co. Another was one of our best country agents in 1916-17 season. He operated at a group of three of the largest sidings in the State, and his stacks remain intact to-day, after standing 18 months. I think he is the only agent in the State of any firm to whom the same compliment could be paid, regarding the efficiency of work done. Another of our inspectors we also got from Perth mill. Another came here from the East and was our foreman on the wharf the first two seasons we were operating. The only one of the five having no previous wheat-buying experience joined us in the latter part of last season. He has had a good business experience, having also been farming for a number of years, and being of administrative capacity has been most competent. What is Mr. Keys' motive in singling out our inspectors for criticism ? Surely if he had made the slightest inquiry he could have obtained more reliable information. I cannot understand why he should attack us in this way. I may mention that two or three of the Scheme's inspectors have at one time sought employment with our company. In reference to allegations of bias, the Commission should recognise also that the present Government inspectors were in opposition to us in the first two seasons, and must have had a certain amount of mortification in having been hopelessly beaten by our young organisation, and although Mr. Keys claims to have been good enough to tell them as we were only "young and learning" that they were to give us every assistance, it must undoubtedly have been hard for them to refrain from retaining at least some slight feeling of resentment. As a matter of fact they were not qualified to teach us. Our work in 1916-17 season was such as to be a lesson to the old firms. The Hon. Mr. Mitchell, the then Minister, indicated so to me personally. I also wish to refer to a statement made by Mr. Keys (No. 4170 /4). Mr. Keys says that Mr. Solomon,, of Quairading, withheld his 800 bags of wheat from the Pool because the co-operative company had sublet their contract. Mr. Solomon is the Chairman of the Quairading co-operation and was one of the parties responsible for the making of the arrangements at Quairading and contiguous sidings. I quote a wire received by me from Mr. Solomon on 1st August (Thursday last), which reads:— Wheat retained pig feed (opening) owing inability secure damaged wheat ex Dreyfus' stack Badjaling. Absolutely no other reason. See my evidence. Writing. Mr. Keys also makes an accusation against us in regard to Quairading stack. As a matter of fact the Scheme inspector had told Mr. Keys that the stack could not be roofed. It was a very spread-out stack, but it was getting dangerously late in the season, and an old stack at same siding going forward to the mill precluded our getting sufficient supplies of trucks. Mr. Macgregor inspected and decided that roofing was practicable. One