of the Scheme's inspectors informed our inspector afterwards, that the roofing of the stack had been done so well that he was to advise Mr. Keys to keep the stack to the last, and as a matter of fact it was the last stack on that line to be opened up. We supplied iron for roofing and screens for the weather side at our own cost, yet Mr. Keys finds fault. I wish to make special reference to a statement by Mr. Keys to the effect that the tone of our letters to him were not such as should have passed between agent and principal. I am sure an unbiased judge could not do other than decline to accept this statement after reading our correspondence. The Scheme's letters to us, however, have been sarcastic. They have treated us and suggestions tendered by us in good faith on the " elephant-fly" principle. Mr. Keys has accused us of unbusinesslike methods, in support of which he has, however, been unable to give us any specific instance. Our letters in reply have been mild. I would ask the Commission to read the correspondence between the Scheme and ourselves regarding inferior wheat as an instance of the unwarranted odium the Scheme officers have attempted to heap upon us. Of course in reiteration of urgent requirements for dunnage while you are running a big risk with some thousands of bags on the ground, or with half a dozen gangs idle at sidings for want of Government bags for rebagging, it is not the easiest thing in the world to view the position with equanimity. Mr. Keys also stated to you that we have given confidential information to the "Primary Producer, " and in this connection casts aspersions upon our mercantile morality. I emphatically deny the statements made by Mr. Keys, and should be glad if the Commission would arrange to call the editor of the "Primary Producer." Regarding cleaning up of sites, Mr. Keys says (4177) that he has had trouble in getting us to properly clean up the sites. We had a letter from him dated 13th July. I quote it here. 13th July, 1918. The Manager, Westralian Farmers, Ltd. Dear Sir.—Cleaning up of Stacking Sites.—Various reports from inspectors, railway officials, and, in one or two instances, the health authorities, indicate that the clean-up of stacking sites, after the removal of the wheat, leaves much to be desired. The Railway Department requires dunnage to be stacked neatly, old bags and other rubbish destroyed or carted away, and site made clean and sweet and in condition similar to before wheat was received. The present dunnage, old bags, and decomposed wheat take up a considerable portion of the railway yards, and the stacking of the dunnage, and the removal of the other rubbish is essential for the convenience of users of railway property. The health authorities, as in the case of Perenjori, require the putrid decomposed wheat carted away and destroyed. The Wheat Scheme desire this work to be completed without further delay, to meet the requirements of both railway and health departments, and, further, to destroy weevil and other pests that thrive in and about this damaged wheat and old bags, and which, unless properly attended to, will be and is a menace to safe storage of the coming season's wheat. We trust you will give this matter your immediate attention and insist upon your sub-agents completing their obligations. Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) F. C. Keys, General Manager, Wheat Marketing Scheme.

Notice the indefiniteness of Mr. Keys' complaint. Notice also that he refers to Perenjori site. This is an old site of a 1916/17 season stack of Darling's.

16th July, 1918. The General Manager, State Wheat Marketing Scheme. Dear Sir,—1917-18 Season: Cleaning up of Stacking Sites.—We have to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 13th instant, and note your advice's. We may say that we have been advised that your inspector refused to allow our representatives at certain places to destroy old bags. Our Dumbleyoung agent on two occasions (once in the presence of our inspector) pointed out to your inspector that same were valueless, but your inspector insisted that they be allowed to remain on the site. We are also advised that sites used in connection with the above season's operations have been well cleaned up, and we shall be glad if you will kindly specify the places regarding which you allege that you have various reports from inspectors, railway officials, and others. On receipt of such advices we shall be pleased to go into the matter, and ascertain whether the reports you have received are correct or not. Yours faithfully, For the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.

This letter is unanswered. As a matter of fact the Scheme cannot give us the specific instances we ask for. In one or two instances there have been complaints regarding stench from sites. I have in mind one at Dalwallinu for example. In this case, however, the stacks were damaged by flood waters and the stench remained for some little time after the sites had been thoroughly cleaned up. The work of cleaning up has been well done, and Mr. Keys' indefinite letter of 13th July, which was evidently written in order he might bring the matter before you, is the only communication we have received to my knowledge. If he has any complaints, why does he not tell us where they are so that we can rectify them? As to the sub-agency agreement, Mr. Keys makes certain reference to our sub-agency (4361, 4359, 4364). I have to point out that, at the Scheme's request, we forwarded them a blank copy of our proposed sub-agency agreement on 30th November, advising them that this was based on the Scheme's letter to us of 23rd August. This letter and the documents which were enclosed are to this day unacknowledged. In view of the petty matters in regard to which the Scheme inundate us with correspondence, I think their views in respect to our sub-agency agreement, if they were as stated by Mr. Keys in his evidence to the Commission, should have been put in writing to us. I wish to refer to the vexed question of dockages and the fixing of scale of dockages. We knew that some of our former competitors were going to be the judges at the depôts of the wheat tendered by us, and it was absolutely vital for us therefore to demand that the basis of sampling be defined. As soon as the scale was fixed we pointed out to the Scheme that the dockages were too high and quite out of proportion with the basis of sampling which formerly obtained when the old firms were operating. I wish to put in as evidence copies of correspondence on the matter:— 7th January, 1918. The General Manager, State Wheat Marketing Scheme. Dear Sir, Wheat 1917-18—Re sampling. Further to our previous correspondence hereon we consider that the next step which should be taken in regard to the standardisation of grades should be in the direction of allowing a premium on prime wheat. Deductions, as the matter now stands, will be imposed in all cases of inferiority of whatsoever nature. It is our contention that if a farmer is docked on his inferior wheat, and received f.a.q. price for his f.a.q. wheat, he should receive a premium on any wheat he grows above f.a.q. quality. If a farmer is now to be consistently docked for inferiority (which has not hitherto been the practice if the bulk of a farmer's crop was prime wheat), the course herein suggested should appeal to you as being equitable and reasonable. It would necessitate supplying each agent with a set of weighing scales, and this we are prepared to do at a week's notice. This is a very important matter to the farming community, and payment for wheat according to weight per bushel would be a stimulus towards the improvement of Western Australian grain. We thank you in anticipation of your prompt attention in this matter, as there does not appear to us to be any reason why this system should not be introduced this season. Yours faithfully, for the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.

State Wheat Marketing Scheme, Perth, 8th January, 1918. The Manager, Westralian Farmers, Ltd. Dear Sir, Wheat 1917-18. I am in receipt of your letter of 7th inst. with regard to the standardisation of grades and suggesting that a premium should be allowed on prime wheat. I quite agree with your contention that the farmer whose wheat goes, say, 65lbs. to the bushel should receive more than the farmer whose wheat goes only, say, 61lbs., but, unfortunately, as the Scheme cannot a higher price for such prime wheat it is therefore unable to pay a special premium. I would point out that wheat is sold on the basis of f.a.q. and no