does not get into the wheat in the same way that it does here. In fact, I have seen no weevil in England. It dies in a cold climate.

5641. What would be about the market price for a mixed quality of wheat during portions of the year; would we get more per quarter for it?—All those things vary. Sometimes Manitoba No. 1 is a better value than ours, because it is stronger, and possibly there is a good deal of ours in the market and not much of the other.

5642. Would ours not have the strength and the colour?—It has a better colour, but not the strength.

5643. You think that the bulk handling, if adopted throughout Australia, would be of advantage with regard to the marketing of this mixed quality of wheat?—I think in the end it is bound to come, because it saves such a lot. The other States are going in for it, but it is costing a great deal of money. The old system was right enough when the wheat was covered properly. When I came out from London, I arrived at Fremantle and I saw there a great length of stacks of wheat, and not a single bit of iron on it. If there had been as early rain a fearful lot of that would have been lost. We never leave our wheat uncovered, and when we could afford it, we built iron sheds in all the places. They stand to-day and all the wheat which has been put in those sheds has come out all right. South Australia is the oldest of the wheat States and there is not one single proper wheat store.

5644. Was that wheat handled by the agents?—Yes, and it was a disgrace to those agents. I went over the London stores and found that they were all splendidly built and complete in every detail.

5645. Have you considered the bulk storage position?—I believe it is the best thing we can have, but it cannot be done with sailing ships, because of the expense and the increased insurance. A steamer does not lie over like a sailing ship. In a sailing ship the wheat would be liable to go into the drainage of the ship as the vessel heeled over, and it would get wet. Bulk handling will never come so far as sailing ships are concerned.

5646. We would never ship all our wheat in bulk?—We never should.

5647. Would you be rather conservative so far as capital expenditure on bulk storage at this particular period is concerned?—I would go slowly. I would begin at ports and make inquires as to the latest systems in Canada and the Argentine. We shall have to alter all our railway trucks. In Argentine they have trucks which carry 20 tons and by drawing a valve the wheat runs out of them. The Argentine, too, is more like our country than any other, and they have learned a lot of things from us; we might learn something from them.

5648. By the CHAIRMAN: Have you been in Canada?—No, but it is one of the advantages of travelling that you meet people from various parts of the world. On the Baltic I used to meet Canadians.

5649. A proposal ha been submitted to Parliament with regard to bulk storage and it is to build a series of bins capable of holding 40,000 bushels each. It is said that these will protect wheat from weevil, or at any rate, control the wheat to that extent, by taking the wheat out of the bottom of the bin and putting it into the top of the bin. Would that keep the weevil away?—I think the expense would be too big. The great thing is to keep the wheat dry and that can be done by building temporary sheds, which cost much less than even covering wheat with iron without a shed. It is much cheaper to put up a shed on permanent props. In the old way the iron gets bent and you have to put heavy dunnage on top of it and even it is shifted with the wind.

5650. There is a system here of making depots. Do you think that instead of having depots, there should be more shed at the various sidings?—I would put up more sheds along the line. In Victoria they are beginning to see that they require wheat in the country. It is better to distribute the wheat more than has been done in the past.

5651. You would not recommend at this juncture putting up silos, especially for storage?—No, it would cost too much.

5652. Can you tell the Commission why a resolution was carried by the Australian Wheat Board last year different from resolutions previously carried with regard to payment for the wheat. The Australian Wheat Board guaranteed 4s. 4d., less railage rates, conditionally that the States' Governments and the Federal Government kept full control?—I do not know, except that it was for the purpose of checking what was going on here. The Government had to finance it and the Government, I suppose, had to take control. It Is right that the Government should have control of the wheat when it is in stack.

5653. If an executive board were appointed to control the management of the Wheat Scheme in this State, with Government protection so far as the finances were concerned, would that get over the difficulty?—I would take the whole thing out of the hands of the Government, and I would have a board responsible to the Government. The system is bad all round. Think of politicians being put in the unfortunate position Mr. Baxter finds himself in to-day! It is unfair to the man, he is doing his best; he has made mistakes and he has all these men to please, men who have to vote for him. Sir Richard Butler in South Australia nearly lost his seat in the same way, and he would have done so, too, if I had addressed several meetings. He has been worked to death and he has all these worries besides having to look after the finances of the State. He has undertaken what he cannot do, and so has Mr. Baxter.

5654. And they have not had much experience?—Not only that, but they have not the time. I want to draw attention to this fact: We are nominally the managers, but we are not. The managers are the four firms who are the advisers. Why? Because we have to do what they tell up. We cannot go against them because we have not the information. We should have before us every telegram and cable that passes between Australia and England. But we are not managers, and therefore we depend on them. They are really contractors under the State Boards; they are managers of the whole thing and, worse still, they are the only people who get information from London. Fancy the position of the co-operative societies! They have to ship their wheat to England. Who looks after it there? Why, their opponents here!

5655. If this Commission should report in favour of having an executive board and the report in favour of having an executive board and the report were adopted by the Government, do you think the Australian Wheat Board would raise any objection?—I do not think so.

5656. Do you think the Australian Wheat Board would assist the Government if they desired to carry that into effect?—I think they are getting, if they have not got, quite tired of it. If you recommended that an executive board be appointed to take the full management, I think the A. W. B. would be glad. There is one thing you must remember, whatever you do each State must be representative.

5657. I am dealing with local conditions. The question I asked was, do you think the Australian Wheat Board, if the Commission recommended the appointment of an executive body in this State, would raise any objection?—I do not think so, at the same time I think the Australian Wheat Board would be glad to be relieved. If the co-operative people are to do the business there must be an executive, and that executive must be non-political. I am sure if the Board in Melbourne did not agree to the thing at first they very soon would.

5658. I notice in the minutes, or summary of the business of the Wheat Board conference, held on the 16th January, it reads as follows:—

In view of the advice received from London committee on the question of reducing our wheat areas in favour of stock and pig raising, it was decided on the motion of the Hon. W. C. Grahame (N.S.W.), seconded by Hon. J. Gardiner (W.A.), that the matter of advising farmers be left to the Governments of the individual States to give whatever advice they may think fit.

Could you give the Commission any reasons why they should advise on this question?—No; I do not see why we should interfere with the farmers; if they think it best to grow wheat they will grow wheat, and if best to keep stock they will do so. All the poorer farmers who want assistance could not do it unless the Government found the money. The Government would have to find the money for the fencing. As to giving up wheat growing we cannot.