communication with you this morning, and have to advise that, with the approval of the farmers who are delivering at the above siding, inferior wheat is being put into stack, and with the dockage averaged on the bulk sample. Farmers will then be docked equally. We are obliged for your kindly giving your approval in respect to this matter. For the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. 7th February, 1918. The Manager, Westralian Farmers, Ltd., Perth. Dear Sir,—Wyalcatchem 1917/18 Wheat.—I have pleasure in confirming herewith the arrangements set out in your letter of 5th instant with respect to dockage on wheat being delivered at this siding. Yours faithfully, (sgd.) F. C. Keys, General Manager, Wheat Marketing Scheme. 5th February, 1918. The General Manager, State Wheat Marketing Scheme. Dear Sir,—Wheat 1917/18: Bulk sampling, Winchester and Carnamah.—With reference to our letter of the 25th ult. and our call upon you to-day, when we submitted bulk samples ex stacks at above sidings, we now confirm the instruction then given to you, viz., that this wheat is to be docked 6d. per bushel. We also note that Carnamah wheat may be railed to Midland Depot, and have arranged accordingly. Yours faithfully, for the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. 7th February, 1918. The Manager, Westralian Farmers, Ltd.—Dear Sir,—Bulk sampling, Winchester and Carnamah.—I am in receipt of your letter of 5th inst., and have pleasure in confirming the arrangements made with your company that the wheat ex the above stacks as per bulk samples submitted is to be docked 6d. per bushel, and that Carnamah wheat may be railed to Midland Junction Depot. Yours faithfully, (sgd.) F. C. Keys, General Manager, Wheat Marketing Scheme. Mr. Keys states (question 3917) that a running bulk sample at the depot is absurd. If this be so, why did representatives of the agents, of which Mr. Keys was the chairman, propose this method to the Government when quoting against us? Mr. Keys says this was done on instructions from Melbourne. Surely firms of such standing as he says Dreyfus is, and to whom he is going back, he says, "99 chances to one," and who he tells us have such a world-wide organisation and a capital of sir millions, and a Paris office handling more wheat than is grown in the whole of Australia, and who, moreover, are supposed to have once offered to handle West Australia's crop for nothing; surely they would not ask for a previously unheard of running bulk sample "just that they might have something to give way on." Mr. Keys remarks, "Something to give way on" in negotiations for better terms with the poor Western Australia Government. It is incredible. I now come to the question of the roofing of last season's stacks. Mr. Murray has explained to you some of the difficulties we had in this connection—how we repeatedly requested permission to roof and were denied permission to do so. In this connection I claim that whereas our company had foresight as to the position which it was inevitable would arise, the Scheme were indifferent. I wish to quote from a letter we wrote the Scheme on the 19th September last as soon as we knew the basis on which they proposed to operate:— Although the Scheme's plan might be to have all wheat railed to depots by the end of April, there are many contingencies to be kept in view; for example, there is a possibility of some confusion arising at such places where we understand you purpose making direct loading arrangements in the event of the railways failing to supply trucks. Further, there is likely to be more confusion if you are unable to life the whole of the wheat before the end of April, and if no arrangements have been made for protecting it. The possibility of strikes has also to be considered in this latter connection. We would there fore stress the advisability of having stacks in the country built in such a manner that they could be roofed if necessary.

Early in February we saw that heavy losses were likely to be incurred by the Pool through lack of any provision for the protection of the wheat. We wrote time and again, and I think your attention has been drawn to the correspondence in this connection. Mr. Keys was questioned by the Commission in regard to the re-roofing of Pingelly stack. I wish to point out that this stack was partially dismantled twice at least by wind, and this might account for the apparent discrepancy in regard to the time it was first re-roofed and finally covered. We pointed our to Mr. Keys that his system was defective before we undertook the work, but, on his demanding that it be done according to his specification, we complied, and I can honestly say we did our best to do the work as satisfactorily as his method would permit. Mr. Keys stated that only two roofs were blown off, and specifies Pingelly and Ardath. In addition, Doodlakine roof was partly blown off, and many others that our agents replaced without making any claim against the Scheme, and consequently without Mr. Keys being aware of the fact. Mr. Keys also says that at the time 1917-18 stacks were being roofed some old stacks of different firms of the previous season which were being removed were found to have suffered through faulty roofing. This was owing to the settling down and spreading of the stack after standing a year forcing the sheets apart. This will happen with all systems except independent roofing. There is no comparison between the system adopted last season and that adopted the previous year. We were criticised by farmers and opposition agents all over the country, firstly, for not providing cover at all over the country, firstly, for not providing cover at all in many cases; secondly, for doing it too late; thirdly, for doing the roofing in a slipshod manner. I think the Commission, however, is clear, from the correspondence on the Wheat Scheme's own file, that we were not in any respect to blame in these connections. Our urgent representations were treated with the customary cold shoulder. Mr. Keys says he could not get iron. That is quite incorrect. There was sufficient iron in the State to cover country stacks had he provided it, even in the end of January. Under queries 3870-5 Mr. Keys states that we have charged for stacks which have never been covered. He wrote us on 18th June as follows:— I have to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 13th instant enclosing account for roofing 1917 wheat in stacks. I should be glad if you will render amended account, as you have included the following stacks which were not roofed:—Benjaberring, Dangin, and Kwolyin. Also the quantities shown as roofed do not agree with the reports received from our inspectors for the following sidings:—

              -        West. Farmers.  -  Inspectors.

Cunderdin - 14,522 - 12,200 Nangeenan - 13,604 - 12,500 Babakine - 11,571 - 10,912 Corrigin - 11,029 - 5,670 Pingelly - 18,000 - 10,600 Kulin - 8,902 - 4,816 Moulyinning - 14,866 - 12,922

The Babakine and Corrigin quantities were checked by your inspector, Mr. Thorpe, and agreed with our figures. In reference to Shackleton, 12,130 bags—38,041 bushels. The bushels in this instance do not appear to be correct—average over 188lbs. per bag.

The stacks which Mr. Keys contends had been charged for by us, without the work having been done, were Benjaberring, Kwolyin and Dangin. As he is perfectly well aware, however, it was arranged that these three stacks were to be roofed. Certain work had been done on all of them. A considerable quantity of bags had been handled, and the slope prepared for roofing. In the case of Kwolyin stack timbers had been laid and iron and sleepers placed on the top of the stack. Before the roofing work had been completed, however, instruction were received from the Scheme for the railing of these stacks. As definite contracts had been made, we could legally have claimed the full ½d.per bushel on these stacks. We have been able, however, to effect a settlement with our contractors on the basis of actual costs incurred. The allegation by Mr. Keys herein is unfair, biased, and misleading in the extreme. Mr. Keys also states that we have charged for covering more wheat in stacks than actually was covered. In his letter of 18th June, just quoted, he specifies the cases in which our figures did not agree with those received from his inspectors, they being seven in number. The Corrigin, Pingelly and Kulin figures show a considerable discrepancy. This is due to the