the South Australian Farmers' Union business for a long time. I was working with them and I went to every port in England and to Antwerp and to Rotterdam to see the cargoes delivered. I think three firms acted very shabbily in knocking out the other three. We cabled Mr. Hughes, but of course we could do nothing. It must be said for the board that lately they have promised that the farmers' co-operative societies shall have one man on the selling board in London. By this means we may be able to get in touch with out customers again. Some people talk as if the farmers could not ship. Why we have shipped for years and years and the buyers would take the farmers' cargoes before any others. People always do think that they are indispensable, whereas such is not the case. I feel that the work can be done better as a whole under the co-operative system than with the competition of the different firms. It would also be cheaper for the farmers. We have had five or six different agents at the same place, and these are paid by what they get. Naturally they are keen. Say there are six agents. These are all running after wheat. Very often they will take an inferior sample of wheat and that will go into the stack, the object being to secure also the remainder of the crop of which that is a sample. The agents who get the first lot of a farmer's wheat usually obtain the rest. Agents will pass in lots of wheat that is inferior with that object in view. Not only is there the expense of the agents, but they are found taking in wheat that they should not take in. That position is worst of all in regard to the 1916-17 harvest. The agents were running after the farmers. There was no one to check them when they put inferior wheat into the stacks, and all they wanted to do was to get the custom of these different farmers. That was a very bad system. Our system was this: every bag of wheat had a farmer's number on it, and each farmer had his own number. If it happened that a bag on inferior wheat was passed by oversight, it could be checked afterwards in the stack, and the farmer concerned whose number would be on the bag would take care that this would not happen again. But the system could easily be adopted now. Instead of having numbers on the bags it would be possible to have the man's initials on it, just in the case with bales of wool. The farmer would then take care to bring in good samples, and would not like to have his initials upon bad samples. This would do away with a lot of expense and trouble.

5635. It would also be a protection for the Pool?—Yes, and to the good farmer. It would stop the bad farmer. With regard to the weevil, at present many farmers are reaping their wheat with the new machines, reaper-harvesters, before the wheat is fit to be taken off. They get their wheat into the hands of the agents in that condition because it is heavier. If the bags were marked these men would be pulled up. If this sort of thing is done, the weevil has a much better chance of developing. We found that the weevil has been worse since we got the new machine. The system I have suggested would provide a check all round.

5636. By the CHAIRMAN: I have here a sample of wheat which was stored in a shed at Geraldton, which was erected under the conditions laid down by Professor Lefroy. This sample was taken from wheat near the popular stack. The reason assigned for it being in this condition is that it was probably some old wheat left over by one of the farmers and put in with the new?—Quite possibly. Under the system I have mentioned this could not happen. I should think that the farmer is question had a weevily shed and that he allowed his wheat to get damp. On one occasion we picked our wheat, as we always did for smut, and the weather turned out to be too wet for us to sow it. This wheat was picked with bluestone, but after it had been kept it developed weevil to such an extent that it had to be given to the pigs. Wheat damp, was put into the bags, and left damp, and so became weevily. Wherever there is dampness we have found that the weevil will always appear. It was our custom to stack our wheat as far away from the seaports as possible and to stack it in dry places. For all these years we have never had any damaged wheat, except at one damp port at which we gave up stacking.

5637. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: How far off the ground were the stacks?—They were always in the region of 6 inches above ground.

5638. By the CHAIRMAN: Here is a sample of wheat taken from the 1915-16 harvest which has been on a shelf ever since?—That is very good wheat. I see no weevil in it. This bears out my contention that if the wheat was kept dry the weevil would not come into it. Allow wheat to get damp, it will become heated, and the heat will brings the weevil. All our cargoes except one arrived at their destination in good order. This one cargo happened to be shifted in a big storm, and consequently became very wet. The wheat was actually growing on the side of the vessel when it arrived at its destination. The wheat that was in the centre, however, was still good. This ship herself was alive with weevil, but the wheat in the middle was still quite good. Your Western Australian wheat is the best wheat they have had from any of the States during the last three or four years. I have seen samples in England. Not only has it been good wheat but clean wheat. Your land is new and free from weeds and as is the case in older places. The Western Australian wheat is even cleaner than that of South Australia. I have seen it stated in the Press that the farmers' co-ops. are unable to do the business. When we had to compete with those agents who had any amount of money we not only did the business, but got a good name in London. We financed it all and never had to keep a man waiting for his money. At Home I have sold from £600,000 to £700,000 worth of wheat in a year. Our company was only a small one then. I see no difficulty in the business being conducted by the co-op. companies, or any difficulty in the Government having the supervision of the whole thing, so long as both parties work together in a friendly way. I am sorry to see what has happened here. Mr. Baxter began the business, and has said things which should never have come out. It is a great pity. I notice that he abused me in your Parliament. If he abuses me I can answer him. I can do so readily because I have nothing to hide. All the information I have at my disposal is available to the farmers. I wish to see the thing done well. I do hope that whatever happens we shall never go in for a lot of gambling again. That was always the farmers' loss. I hear that there have been losses in the wheat stacks through wet. I have seen stacks belonging to agents absolutely uncovered. The rain has poured down upon them and they have been soaked right through, the consequent loss being a heavy one. They were in a better position then to deal with the matter than we are now. It must not be supposed that the merchants bear all these losses, because it is the farmers who have had to do so. If a merchant loses money, he will give a lower price for wheat next time. My experience is that these people always get at the farmers. Sometimes farmers used to store our wheat for three years with them and pay storage all the time.Now the Farmers' Union gets all the advantage that the merchants used to get. Before the Farmers' Union started, the farmers frequently had to take 2d. a bushel less than the market price. Before we started the farmers' co-op. society in South Australia, the price of Port Augusta and Port Pirie was 3d. a bushel under the price of Port Adelaide. After we had started the difference was only one half-penny per bushel, the difference going to the farmers.

5639. By Mr. BROWN: What proportion of each season's wheat did the co-operative organisation sent to a foreign market?—During the first year we sold in Australia for the most part. We always sold when we could to Dreyfus & Co., Bell & Co., Darling & Son, and Cave & Co. I always believe in dealing in a friendly way with these firms. If a merchant was short and required to make up a shipment I always did what I could to help him so long as he paid a fair price. I do not think we sent away more than half of our wheat to foreign markets, but we sent more than half in the end.

5640. By Mr. HARRISON: Would it not be better for the sale of the Australian wheat if the delivery was spread over the whole year instead of coming within three months of the year only?—I think that the largest proportion of it ought to be sold during the first three months of the year, but I do not think we should sell so much as we have done. The fact of our selling when we do suits the market in England, because our wheat goes there after the Canadian wheat is over. Ours is a good wheat for mixing. In England, there is frequently only a six weeks' supply of wheat on hand. There is a very bad condition for England to be in. It will be very much better to store the wheat in England for a longer period and hold it there until required, because the weevil