5806. By Mr. HARRISON: Do you consider that to be one of the most serious matters in regard to the handling of wheat?—I do. We do not let a truck go out without a sheet.

5807. Have you known flour to be sent away by rail without covering?—No.

5808. Do you think contaminated trucks could be treated so as to destroy weevil?—We tried the steaming process here.

5809. Could it be done by the Railway Department?—It would minimise the trouble greatly if the trucks were steamed. The only way to absolutely settle the weevil would be to have depots where the trucks could be fumigated. Then chemicals are such a high price. We cyanide the whole mill twice a year and after the last occasion there was not a live weevil in the place.

5810. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you mean as far as the trucks are concerned they would have to go through the process every time they were used?—Yes, if you are going to keep them free from weevil.

5811. By Mr. BROWN: Before the storage system was introduced, you were not troubled with weevil?—We were only troubled with it on two occasions. One point which is worrying us is that we are getting into trouble with our clients about sending them weevily flour. But there is no weevil in it when it leaves the mill.

5812. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: I understand you have had experience of weevil in your silos?—That was from wheat which was weevily before.

5813. What depth did the weevil go down?—15ft. below the top. That wheat was there for about four or five months.

5814. That disproves the statement made to the Commission that weevil will only go down in wheat 8ft.?—My experience is that they will go further. The weevil I showed you this morning came from the bottom of the tank which had 60ft. of wheat in it, but it may have got down from the top as the wheat was being drawn out.

(The witness retired.)

LOUIS LEOPOLD HERMAN PITTELKOW, Farmer and Agent and Secretary of the Woodanilling Co-operative Company, sworn and examined:

5815. By the CHAIRMAN: You desire to give evidence before the commission?—I have been handling wheat at Woodanilling for a number of years. Last year, while the season was in progress we received instructions from the Westralian Farmers, and I suppose they in turn received instructions from the Scheme, that no more wheat already in stack should be trucked pending further instructions from the Government. Very little wheat was coming in and we were compelled to keep our men on. The only wheat that we could load was that which the farmers brought in. The wheat in the stack had to stand, and although we had trucks available we were not allowed to load it. This caused us extra expense and also left the wheat exposed to the weather. That state of affairs existed for six weeks before we finally got permission to load. In the interval the wheat was damaged by rain. At the beginning of the season we could not get enough trucks and we had to stack some of the wheat.

5816. We have had evidence that in some cases they were unloading from farmers' wagons into stack, and then from the stack into trucks for the express purpose of doing more work. Did that apply in your case?—No. We loaded everything from wagons to trucks when the trucks were available. If we received a load of wheat from the farmers and stacked it in the yard, it could be taken for granted there were no trucks available. There are times when an odd truck or two may be at the siding, and it is impossible to load them.

5817. What quantity of wheat did you receive at Woodanilling?—Last season the total was only 3,600 bags.

5818. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Which paid you better, to unload into the stack and then into the truck, or direct from the wagon into the truck?—If there is enough wheat coming into keep a man going it is certainly better to load direct into the truck. Of course last year was a bad one. We only had 3,600 bags against 23,000 in the previous year.

5819. Which would have paid you better this year?—If you could stack the whole of the wheat and then load it, it would pay to load from the stack.

5820. By Mr. BROWN: Are there many farmers in your area who are not members of the co-operative society?—Not more than five.

5821. By the CHAIRMAN: Have you had any trouble with the Scheme inspector?—I have never seen him. With regard to weevil, I might say that until I went to Perth the other day, I had never seen it.

5822. Not even in railway trucks?—No.

5823. By Mr. HARRISON: Have you any complaint to make in regard to the supply of trucks?—I did not have any complaints against the Department last year. That was due to the fact that the quantity of wheat was so small.

5824. By Mr. BROWN: Have you had any trouble in regard to dunnage?—In the year before last we had to provide our own dunnage, until we got a consignment of sleepers.

(The witness retired.)

ROBERT SANDERS BELL, Farmer, Woodanilling, sworn and examined:

5825. By the CHAIRMAN: I understand you desire to make a statement to the Commission?—The matter I wish to bring under your notice has reference to the difference in the gristing charges between this district and the Wagin district. All gristing was done at 10d. per bushel to the farmer while the charge in Katanning is 1s. That means that the Katanning farmer is victimised to the extent of 2d per bushel. I take it that 2d. goes to the Pool, and we as farmers think it is very unfair that that should be so. I am not blaming the mill; I am blaming the manager of the Scheme, because I think all the mills were given instructions that they were to impose the usual charges.

5826. Before the Scheme was formed, were you paying 1s.?—Yes, but we claim that the Government are allowing 7d. per bushel for gristing, and I believe there are certain charges to be added and the difference between the total and the 1s. goes to the Pool. If that is so, why should we have to pay 2d. more than the Wagin farmer?

5827. Have you heard of other places where different charges are being imposed?—No.

5828. This is the first time the matter has been mentioned to the Commission?—Another matter is that I would like to see our own company handle the wheat and I have never heard a farmer express a different view.

5829. When the wheat was handled by private acquiring agents, were the co-operative societies in existence?—No.

5830. Do you think that if private acquiring agents were acquiring the wheat in the future they would avail them selves of the services of the local agents of the co-operative societies to handle the wheat for them?—I do not think they would. Take our own little place. Richardson & Co. or F. & C. Piesse have their men there, and the other acquiring agents appoint another storekeeper there to take on the agency. To my mind they never give a farmer a fair deal. If they cannot get hold of the wheat as they want it, probably on Saturday morning they would put up the price a half-penny or three farthings and on Monday you might find it has dropped back.