5118. Any company whatever?—No. But I organised insurance agencies on behalf of one of the insurance companies here for a period while I was still farmer.

5119. You are receiving a salary and also a commission?—I receive no commission; only a stated salary.

5120. I do not know whether it has been stated in evidence, but it has been said that you receive a commission?—I have no commission.

5121. Any costs incurred by your sub-agent in caretaking of stacks is made up to them, extra and above the amount they receive for handling the wheat? You have one penny set down in your statement as paid to sub-agents for handling wheat?—I do not quite follow.

5122. Let me put it this way: Under the terms of the agreement there is one penny to the sub-agent for handling wheat. That is the maximum amount. Now, any cost to which he is put for caretaking of stack, say, up to the 30th September of this year, you pay him extra for?—The first contract would not provide for caretaking; so, if the sub-agent care-takes for us, we pay him. We pay for the caretaker.

5123. The only amount you are allowed by the Scheme is provided in the halfpenny?—Yes, it is provided for in the agreement.

5124. With regard to Mr. Keys and your company, you seem fairly convinced that Mr. Keys is not working in sympathy with you and that his attitude is therefore detrimental to the scheme?—Yes.

5125. He is not carrying on in the manner that would be expected by the contractor in order to bring about harmonious working?—No. The price at which we were virtually forced to caretake these stacks—one-sixteenth of a penny for the first period—was such as could not justify him in expecting the best work. We did not sweat-our labour, and the probability is that we lost over that contract. The tone of the letters from his department to us, and which he tolerates, should not be permitted by a fair manager, let alone a friendly one. We say also that the continual practice of barging such as he adopts is likely to lead to misunderstandings. It is not the way to maintain a friendly feeling, to extract from us conditions which he knows will be more than irksome, if not impossible.

5126. I suppose you are aware that Mr. Keys stated in his evidence that every matter he dealt with was dealt with after consultation with the Minister or the members of the board?—i have not been able to carefully peruse the evidence given by Mr. Keys; I desire to be perfectly fair to Mr. Keys.

5127. As Mr. Keys was previously manager for Dreyfus & Co., do you think it is possible in consequence of that for a feeling to be engendered on both sides which would be detrimental to the Scheme as a whole?—I think it is too much for the Scheme to expect perfect harmony when they appoint as their manager a man who had previously been a competitor and who had just then lost in competition with ourselves.

5128. You do not think, then, that in carrying on his work he would be as fair to his new employers as he was to his old employers?—I think it is possible for a man in such a position to be fair, but when Mr. Keys says that the chances are 99 out of 100 that he will return to Dreyfus & Co., that firm must naturally expect sympathy from him in his present management. They will probably also expect that he will not do anything dishonest, but they will expect that he will, so far as possible, safeguard their interests.

5129. By Mr. BROWN: With regard to the incoming crop and the management, do you think that an executive body, similar to the Harbour Trust, would be an improvement on the existing advisory board?—We got a lesson from the Scheme some time ago; they said that in matters of policy it was better to leave things to politicians. I have given very little thought to a proposal such as you suggest. When the old board was in existence, with Mr. Sutton in charge, a fair thing was always done, and adjustments were made on the spot. The merchants reasonably carried out their responsibilities as to handling even beyond the strict letter of their agreements.

5130. So far as the incoming crop is concerned, would you favour competitive arrangements amongst the acquiring agents?—You might have heard that the farmers who met at the co-operative conference last month appealed to the Premier and asked him to approve of the principle of co-operative handling. I believe that would be a more satisfactory plan. I was in sympathy with that request.

5131. By Mr. HARRISON: When a sub-agent has practically finished stacking, is it usual for him to leave the pick-up wheat on the ground in heaps until he has a full truck?—It is necessary for him to ask in these particular circumstances for authority regarding the disposal of that wheat. He would not truck it without permission from us. Our inspectors would probably tell him what to do. If he has any quantity he should send us a sample, and we would have it disposed of.

5132. Have you your inspectors at the depot when the wheat is received?—We have a checker at each depot.

5133. Does he report to you the condition of the wheat which is being received there and how it is disposed of?—His business is to check the samples that are submitted for dockage, to collect all the tallies, and in that way check the quantities received from each agent.

5134. Is he responsible for damp wheat being received and put into the depot; would it be within his province to report that to you if it were taking place?—No. We have nothing to do with the handling at depots. If we had he would be out of a job in no time if he permitted damp wheat to go into stack. His business is to collect samples of the wheat to be docked, check the dockage and gather in the tallies for the day.

5135. If that is the case, how will your head office fare when the stacks are broken down and the wheat is found to be in a bad condition?—If the wheat goes into the depot wet, it is the fault of the man in charge of the depot.

5136. Will it not reflect adversely on your company if that should prove to be the case?—Undoubtedly. We are blamed for what we have no control over.

5137. You have no knowledge as to what goes into the depots?—I have heard that certain wheat went into the Spencer's Brook depot wet. I have heard that there was one bay opened, and that that particular one had good wheat in it. I have heard that the wrong bay was opened.

5138. Is that going to reflect on you or the sub-agent?—On us, but it should not. When the wheat is received at the depots it is stacked by the man in charge and dealt with as he thinks fit. We think it would be advisable to allow the co-operative concern handling the wheat in the country to also receive it and stack it themselves at the depots.

5139. You think dual control of receiving from sub-agents and then be received at the depots will be detrimental to the Scheme?—I think it is bad. If we do not know what is coming into the depots we cannot properly check the country agents.

5140. It is hard to say whether it is coming in bad to the agents or damaged from the depots?—During June it rained for nearly every day.

5141. For the first fortnight?—And any wheat in transit during that time would be well saturated, and it would take time to re-condition it. We do not want to come here to voluntarily find fault with their operations; we want to defend ourselves against any statements that have been made against us.

5142. By the CHAIRMAN: Any wheat sent to the depots is sent to the Government and you have no right to reject it?—Yes, we have no right to reject it.

(The witness retired.)

The Commission adjourned.