extra payment is received for wheat over this quality that is shipped. I am somewhat surprised to note your statement that is has not been the practice to dock for inferiority, as this is new to the scheme, and I am therefore forced to assume that, insofar as this is concerned, you are referring to your own business. Yours Faithfully, (Sgd) F.C. Keys, General Manager, Wheat Marketing Scheme.

5092. I notice Mr Keys states he is surprised to note your statement that "it has not been the practice." I suppose he is referring to your method of handling?—We consider that good wheat should carry a little inferior, and that was indicated to him in the letter sent to him before.

5093. You realise the difficulty about paying the higher rate?—We do not see very much Difficulty about improving on the method be sought to fasten on us. We said the system was harsh. He mentioned in his evidence that he told me it would be better for us to work on the rule of thumb plan, That was not satisfactory to us. We wanted to know where we were.

5094. By Mr. HARRISON: Were you afraid that the valuation of their inspectors at the depot might not coincide with yours?—Yes.

5095. By the CHAIRMAN: That was prior to the meeting of the committee which fixed f.a.q.?—Yes.

5096. Mr. Keys said he made an estimate which proved to be within half a pound of the decision of the committee?—A very good guess. Most of the wheat firms are able to judge pretty accurately what the standard will be.

5097. So the statement made by Mr. Keys that the standard was fixed at your request was correct?—That part of the statement is quite right. We wanted to know the basis on which we were to dock, and that on which they were going to dock us. We got them to fix the standard, but we did not fix it; we thought it to high. We had been blamed for the scale of dockage. We refused to take that blame; we shifted it to the shoulders where it belonged.

5098. By Mr. HARRISON: Was there much discrepancy between the sub-agents' dockage and the Scheme's dockage at the depots?—Mr. Keys has given the actual figures. It was reduced by the Minister, and they rebated to the farmer £1,500. After that the difference between us is as Mr. Keys shows. Here is a letter dated 10th January, which we wrote to the general manager of the Wheat Marketing Scheme— 10th January, 1918. The General Manager, State Wheat Marketing Scheme. Dear Sir, Season 1917-18.—Standardisation of Grades.—We are in receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., contents of which have been noted. We should like to draw your attention to the fact that inferior wheat on which a farmer is docked 1d. to 3d. per bushel when shipped with other wheat, of which there will be a considerable quantity, realises full f.a.q. price. The Scheme gets the benefit of the wheat above f.a.q., which compensates on a running bulk sample for the wheat which is below f.a.q. Seeing that the farmer growing the wheat under f.a.q. is docked, and the bulk of his wheat on a running bulk sample gets shipped as f.a.q., we contend that the farmer who grows prime wheat could be paid a premium by the Government without the latter incurring any loss whatsoever. In reference for which to the last paragraph of your letter, you are reading into ours of the 7th inst. an inference for which there is no ground or occasion.

5099. By the CHAIRMAN: That means that the farmer who puts in inferior wheat gets an additional price on account of the farmer who puts in good wheat?—You are not going to pay the grower of prime wheat a premium: he has to carry the other. The man who is bringing in inferior wheat perhaps in the next load will bring in prime wheat, and if you take his total deliveries you will find that he turns out f.a.q.

5100. By Mr. HARRISON: Then if you believe in dockage, you also believe in premiums for higher quality wheat?—It seems only equitable.

5101. How would that work with the Pool in the various States?—I know nothing of the arrangements in the other States.

5102. By Mr. BROWN: It would be impracticable, would it not?—It might be a little difficult, but it has been done in the past, and some consideration has been shown to the farmer bringing in faulty wheat. The letter of 10th January continues— It has certainly been our practice to dock for inferiority, but as you are aware, the custom with all firms has been that if a farmer had a parcel of prime wheat and a small parcel of inferior grain,he was let down lightly on his inferior wheat, in view of the compensatory effect of his better quality wheat. Now, however, under your scale of dockages, the farmer with inferior wheat is docked strictly on the value of the inferior wheat, and received no compensation for his prime wheat. We shall be pleased if you will bring this point before the minister, as we are confident our suggestions are reasonable and eminently practicable. Yours faithfully, for the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. Here is the reply:— 17th January, 1918. The Manager Westralian Farmers, Ltd., Perth. Dear Sir,—Standardisation of Grades.—Adverting to your letter of the 10th inst., I have to advise you that the matter has been referred to the Honorary Minister, and he regrets that he is unable to give you instructions on the lines indicated by you. I might say that in all cases where, after due consideration, a certain course of action is decided by the Scheme, he expects you, as Government acquiring agent operating on behalf of the Scheme, to loyally abide by his decision and give effect directly and in directly to his point of view, It is considered that the matter of the justice or otherwise of the Scheme's policy might be left to politicians. Yours faithfully (Sgd.) F. C. Keys, General Manager, Wheat Marketing Scheme. On 19th January we wrote as follows:— The General Manager, Wheat Marketing Scheme.—Dear Sir,—1917/18 Wheat: re Standardisation of Grades.—We have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 17th inst. Notwithstanding the remarks in the concluding portion of your letter, the matter is one so seriously affecting the farming community in whom we are vitally interested that we feel constrained to write you again on the matter. If, as you contend, the payment of premium on what above f.a.q. value is impracticable, we are of opinion that the dockages imposed as per the scale drawn up by you should be reduced by one-half. We have already the pointed out to you that wheat docked up to 6d. per bushel is being mixed with the ordinary wheat. A large quantity of wheat above f.a.q. value mixed with the inferior will enable you to realise an f.a.q price on the whole. Several instances have come before our notice where wheat is weighing 64 and 65lbs. to the bushel. This wheat will compensate for an equivalent quantity of light wheat. We are also of opinion that the standard of 61lbs. to the bushel which you instruct us to work on is too high for this season's crop. We are doubtful is this is a fair estimate. We thank you in anticipation of your favourable reconsideration of the whole matter, as the regulations as made by you are imposing unnecessary hardship in many parts of the agricultural districts. Yours Faithfully, for the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. This is not all correspondence. There are many more letters, but about that time we began to realise that were up against a stone wall. I join issue with Mr. Keys when he says a running bulk sample at siding is impracticable. It was done at two sidings last year with his approval, viz., at Carnamah and at Wyalcatchem. At the former siding the rust was particularly bad, and the farmers were hard hit. The running bulk sample saved them at least twopence per bushed on Mr. Keys' scale of dockages, and yet the Scheme should not show any loss on that parcel when outturning same. I quote the letters which passed regarding the running bulk sample at Carnamah and Wyalcatchem:— 5th February, 1918. The General Manager, State Wheat Marketing Scheme.—Dear Sir,—Wheat 1917-18 season; re Wyalcatchem.—We beg to confirm our telephonic.