ferent bins should be used for the different wheats, that those wheats grown where there was greater moisture should be kept separate from other kinds?—Some system of that sort would have to be instituted. Mr. Suttor of Sydney, who is one of the best versed men in the grain trade of Australia, when discussing the questions of bulk handling in that state, told me that there were certain districts in New South wales where the wheat, no matter how dry it was, would get weevil in it in six months. Some of it, he said, would stand for years without getting weevil, but he proved what he said by showing me samples which he had in his office at the time. His contention was that if wheat was taken to Sydney under the bulk handling system, they would have to be careful and that was one of the reasons why he was against bulk handling. There is one point I have missed and to which I would like to refer. In Canada, as I have told you, the wheat is thrashed. Thrasher companies undertake to deliver the wheat to the nearest elevator. The farmer has not to provide storage, he has it in his stack. Furthermore, if a thrasher company cannot thrash the wheat immediately the farmer wants it done, the farmer can get an advance against the stack until such time as the company can go to him. Therefore it does not matter to him whether his wheat is sent away immediately after it is graded or six months later. That is the reason why they are able to work satisfactorily in Canada. Theirs is a different system of harvesting. The farmer takes his bulk wagon to the elevator and works as he goes on. He does not need to worry any more about his crop once it is cut with the binder and put into the stack. He only awaits the arrival of the thrashing company.

5763. Would there be any danger of mixing the wheat in a large bin as proposed here, that is, mixing wheat with greater moisture than others, and thereby making it all musty and spoiling the lot?—I am sure that a great deal musty and spoiling the lot?—I am sure that a great deal of deal of the trouble at Albany has been caused by mixing damp wheat and badly harvested wheat with good wheat.

5764. By Mr. HARRISON: Is the stacking site at Albany a good one?—It is very poor one, for the simple reason that just under the surface, right along the foreshore where the wheat is stacked there is water. After the big crop of 1915-16 Mr Sutton told me that they were going to send wheat to Albany. I strongly advised against stacking wheat there. When we were increasing the size of our plant here, I went to Albany to look for a site. Albany being a port, I thought it might be better if the wheat were milled there. I made an inspection of all the sheds there and there was not one which was free from weevil. Whenever pollard was stacked there for any length of time, we had complaints from our clients, who said that the stuff went down in a weevily condition. It was always clean when sent from here but it became infested down there. Weevil show up in pollard very quickly.

5765. You said that some wheats would remain free from weevil for three months while others escaped for a longer period. If wheat had to remain in silos for a year or more, do you think it would require to be aerated by moving it with some kind of machinery?—Certainly.

5766. That would necessitate an extra bin of equal capacity to other that may be there?—It would be very much safer to do that unless you had an aeration process by which you could take out the wheat and put it back again. If there was any sign of the wheat being destroyed in the silo, you would have no option but to shift the whole lot of it. If you had another bin you would take out the wheat and turn it over.

5767. It would be more economical in the first instance to have a spare bin of equal capacity to the existing one?—Certainly, if you are going to instal the system.

5768. By the CHAIRMAN: As a purchaser of wheat in Western Australia would you build silos to store wheat?—I would not.

5769. Would you adopt the system of erecting sheds at the principle sidings?—I would.

5770. By Mr. BROWN: Are there as many bulk handling schemes in the United States as there are in Canada?—Canada is always quoted as the home of bulk handling.

5771. When you were making inquires about silos in America, did you approach many companies?—Only the English milling companies, three of them.

5772. Whom did Robinson's, of Sydney, represent?—Their own concern.

5773. Do you know the firm of Metcalf & Co., designers and constructions of the bulk handling system?—I know of them by repute, and I have been in touch with their Mr. Cox, who was in Western Australia. At the time I called for tenders for erection of the silos in steel he said to me, "You should have given us that job; we would have given you much better job in ferro-concrete, and cheaper, too." I asked him to give me a rough estimate of the cost of a 35,000 bag silo, with five compartments. His price was £2,500 more than that for which I got the work carried out in steel.

5774. Would you mind telling us what the silos cost you?—The contract price was £35 a ton. The steel structure cost £6,957. The running gear including the band to the mill cost £2,809. That could be reduced for an ordinary scheme because we put more there for milling purposes. The concrete raft cost £982, and the wire and fitting another £300.

5775. Were those prices arranged before war broke out?—No, twelve months after.

5776. You had to pay certain increased prices on account of the war?—Yes.

5777. By the CHAIRMAN: I suppose you are aware that Mr. Cox's principal line is concrete work?—Yes. Another reason why I decided to use steel was this: You have noticed that all the plant is bolted. If it should happen that I wanted to shift anything, I can take it down. The only thing I will leave behind is the raft. When Mr Bath was discussing the question of silos I mentioned this particular matter. I suggested that if ever the government did adopt the scheme of erecting silos at various centres, they should be of that nature. The whole of the capital cost of putting up silos would not be lost to the country in the event of them having to be removed. The removal could be effected at a cost of the labour only. Once you put up a concrete silo, it is there for all time. I was further influenced in using steel after having inspected the job of Minnifies, in Melbourne. The capacity of Minnifies' silos is about 8,000 bags less than mine, and completed they cost about £3,400 more than mine. Theirs are of reinforced concrete and they were built before the war broke out.

5778. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: What is the total capacity of your silos?—105,000 bushels.

5779. By Mr. BROWN: You spoke about skillion sheds; what would you consider a satisfactory unit for each of these sheds?—That would be governed by the quantity of wheat grown in the various districts. With the data at disposal of the commission, it would be possible to base it.

5780. Would not the expense of supervision and inspection of small sheds be excessive? Suppose only a 20,000-bags shed was put up, the expense of that for supervision would be greater?—Once that shed is filled and covered at the sides, what inspection does it want. We have left our stacks at sidings before there was a railway man at any of them, and we never has a bag of wheat disturbed.

5781. You spoke of offering to the scheme an area of land here: did you put that offer in writing?—No, but I am prepared to discuss the matter on the same lines as before.

5782. I suppose you could store and handle 100,000 bags?—On the blocks I have right adjacent to the mill, I could store 200,000 bags of wheat quite comfortably.

5783. You could caretake them and all?—Yes, I would be prepared to enter into an entirely separate arrangement with regard to that wheat irrespective of any milling that might be required. We have a staff here all the time, and the whole thing is under your eye. If there is prospect of a man having to mill that wheat he will take an interest in it. As things are now no one takes an interest in the wheat. The men get their wages at the end of the day, and if the wheat is good, bad, or indifferent it is of no moment to them. There is another matter I want to bring under the