fact that these stacks were only partially roofed, and, further, owing to the delay in supply of material, and partly owing to some trucks being made available, we arranged for the trucking of the uncovered wheat. Some work had been done even on the unroofed portions, and we have in these three cases also been able to arrange with contractors to accept settlement for unroofed portions on the basis of the work actually done. In the other four instances quoted by Mr. Keys in his letter of 18th June the discrepancies between his figures and ours are not great. His figures, however, are based on a rough count made by his inspectors, whereas our figures are from the daily statements of wheat received by the agents, delivery of which wheat they are accountable for. Our figures therefore are indisputable. In this allegation also Mr. Keys has either gone out of his way to tell the Commission half the truth, or he has been misled by his officers. Mr. Keys also stated that we bled the Scheme for roofing. One half-penny per bushel was allowed us by the Scheme for the work. On tendering this quote to Mr. Keys, and prior to acceptance by him, we advised him that we proposed paying ¼d. to the agents. His acceptance of our quote, therefore, was with full knowledge on his part. We consider that the ¼d. per bushel retained by us was a reasonable remuneration for the work involved. Had all the stacks in the State been roofed, we admit remuneration would have been excessive. Roofing was only done, however, at scattered places, increasing inspection costs. One half-penny per bushel on the total quantity roofed represented a little over £2,000, and of this we paid away £1,000 to sub-agents, as we had previously advised Mr. Keys we proposed doing. This left £1,000 for ourselves. In respect of this allowance we were responsible for the care of the stacks until the 30th of September. The necessity for this care has not eventuated in all cases, but on the other hand, some contingency might have arisen obviating the advisability of railing these stacks. This was provided for by the Scheme according to the contract set out in the correspondence, and we therefore allowed for this in our quote. Mr. Keys himself (see No. 3629) valued this service at one-eighth of a penny per bushel. The remaining eighth covered our supervision of roofing and supervision of care to 30th September, the gross amount being £500. As it happened we only had to care for some of the stacks until now, but had we been required to care for all of them till the end of winter the allowance would have been inadequate. The farthing per bushel paid by us to sub-agents is the same rate as paid by all firms the previous year. The method of actually laying the timber and iron was not so costly as that adopted formerly, but as a set-off against this it has to be recognised that this year's stacks were not built for roofing. This necessitated the handling of a large number of bags. Mr Key's states (query 3886) that the cost of roofing at Bunbury is ⅛d. per bushel. He did not point out to the Commission, however, that it was very much cheaper to roof one stack containing 60,000 bags than five stacks containing 12,000. The statement, therefore, that we bled the Scheme in this connection is quite unjustifiable. You questioned me concerning that matter a little while ago; and not quite appreciating the whole position I answered that the price we gave possibly also covered other services. I wish to correct that. The question is pretty fully dealt with in this statement, and will cover my whole answer to the inquiry which you put up. There is one matter I may mention now. Mr. Keys says definitely that we have been seeking to charge for work which has never been performed. I wish to express the hope that this answer will satisfy the Commission, that the doing of anything dishonest at all is quite foreign to the policy of any co-operative company which is honest, as co-operative concerns have to be, or they would smash. Here is a dishonest practice, not only suggested, but actually charged against us; and we resent it.

5103. By the CHAIRMAN: You state definitely that this halfpenny included the cost of caretaking of stacks until the 30th September. So it is not the roofing only that you have to deal with?—It states here definitely "Roofing and care of the stacks to the 30th September." We did previously care for the stacks until the 31st March for one-sixteenth of a penny per bushel—a charge which Mr Keys knows very well to be altogether inadequate. That was squeezed out of us; it was part of the policy, apparently, to sweat. This refers to the present season. Trucking arrangements, 1917-18 season.—Towards the end of December we realised that having a big contract on hand a slip-shod promiscuous arrangement in regard to trucking would be disastrous. We therefore met Mr. Lord and discussed the matter, Having regard to 1, his engine power; 2, sites at which there was danger of weevil infection or flood-water damage; 3, sidings of special difficulty as regards labour. Certain sidings were ear-marked for temporary stacking. The different agents concerned were advised of the arrangements, and a few days later in order that every agent might be fully cognisant of the position and that there should be no confusion, a uniform circular to agents was drawn up setting out the position at every siding, that is to say, those that were to truck and those that were to stack. This circular was issued on the 8th January. Mr. Lord suggested that in order that he might keep up supplies at sidings which had been ear-marked for trucking, we should make a stipulation that wheat was not to be loaded at other sidings without the specific authority of a railway inspector or station-master. This was duly inserted in the circular. After meeting Mr. Lord and going into the matter with him, he requested a supply of our circulars in order that he might send one to each of his district inspectors and station-masters. I produce a copy of this circular. (Handed in.) We also sent on 9th January a copy of the circular to the General Manager of the Scheme, with the following letter:— As authorised by you, we beg to advise that we have consulted with the Railway Department, with a view to evolving trucking arrangements, having regard to the difficulties we have at various sidings in the matter of securing stacking space, and also having regard to the Department's engine power. We enclose herewith copy of circular setting out the arrangement made, which we trust will meet with your approval. This was not acknowledged by Mr. Keys. I think it was important enough to justify an acknowledgement. The business-like thing to have done would have been to have followed up this step immediately by temporarily roofing at all the sidings ear-marked for temporary stacking, and to have covered each section as same was built. The trucking arrangements were working well until a fortnight afterwards we received from Mr. Keys a letter dated 21st January instructing that no wheat was to be trucked ex stack. We immediately communicated with Mr. Lord by telephone. He expressed himself as being very much surprised at the interference with our plans. We protested, as per our letters of 23rd and 29th January, to which, I think, your attention has been drawn, and the only comment Mr. Keys made was that he had no intention of keeping lumpers unnecessarily employed.

5104. By Mr. HARRISON: With regard to the railway facilities spoken of, did it interfere at all with the sub-agents getting loaded trucks from farmer's wagons to the truck?—At certain places it appears while there was a likelihood of wheat being held for a considerable time, and where the stacking ground was clean and safe.

5105. Did it hang up certain work, certain trucks not being made the best use of?—We had nothing but complaints about trucking after our suggestions were turned aside by the Scheme. Then we sent to all our agents, and they were prepared and worked with it. Our arrangements were made with a view to the most economical and safest method of handling. The agents necessarily fell in with our plans. Generally they always have. This is portion of the circular— Sidings and stations in the Spencer's Brook zone not mentioned above must not load wheat without the express authority of the railway inspector or station-master. Any cost entailed through neglect of this rule will be passed on to the agent concerned. Agents must not imagine that because there are empties lying in the siding that these may be loaded. The question is not a matter of trucks but of lifting power, which is limited.

5106. Did it interfere with the supply of wheat at the various depots—Spencer's Brook and Midland Junction?—This would ensure a continuous supply.

5107. It did not retard it?—It would have the opposite effect. Mr. Lord not only approved of it but