quantity. We could not have put more labour into it for the payment we received.

5884. By the CHAIRMAN: Did you have any choice in accepting or rejecting the work?—Yes, we could have rejected it.

5885. Any loss that might have been made over the low price for the handling of the wheat paid under the agreement would not fall on the Westralian Farmers, but on the co-operative society?—Some of the societies which have been handling wheat have done well, that is the societies which have handled large stacks.

5886. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: I take it this man Kemble was working for the local co-operative society?—Yes.

5887. Any action of his would be the action of the local society?—We still hold the responsibility.

5888. When he sent that weevily wheat knowingly to Tambellup he was doing something which you as a co-operative society were responsible for; therefore you, as farmers, through your employee, allowed weevily wheat to go into the Tambellup stack?—Yes.

5889. That is the way you consider the farmers in this State should look after the wheat?—It was not our act. It was the act of our lumper.

5890. But your lumper is yourself?—His is not us. You have inspectors at Tambellup.

5891. I am not dealing with Tambellup; I am dealing with your co-operative society. You employ a lumper who received and despatched weevily wheat to the depot. He was your servant carrying your responsibility. Do you think hat is a proper position for the farmers in this State to take up?—Not at all.

5892. Yet you say that the lumper is a reliable man, and can be trusted absolutely?—I say he is to be trusted.

5893. Do you think he is an honest man?—What would you do yourself?

5894. You believed his statement that he sent weevily wheat. Did you approve of his action in sending that weevily wheat to Tambellup?—No.

5895. Then you do not consider that it was an honest act?—I do not say it was a honest act. He was not paid as an inspector.

5896. Was it the fair thing to do; was it the act of an honest man to his employers?—If that man had been employed to handle wheat as a wheat expert—

5897. But he was your representative. You are not lumpers, you are contractors, who handle the wheat, and he for the time being was handling wheat as your representative. Do you think he acted properly as a representative of your society in sending weevily wheat to the stack?—No.

5898. By Mr. BROWN: Most of the wheat growers in your area are members of the Southern Farmers, Ltd.?—Yes.

5899. Is one of your objects the purchase and sale of all farming requirements?—Yes.

5900. Do you pay your secretary £5 a week all the year round?—Yes.

5901. Is your co-operative business an ordinary one competing with general merchants?—Certainly.

5902. How long did this Nyabing stack stand before it was sent to the depot?—I cannot give you the particulars.

5903. Was there any roofing belonging to the Westralian Farmers at Wurnup?—No.

5904. There was enough at Nyabing to cover the stack?—Yes; sufficient to cover 9,000 bags.

5905. Do you think the Scheme should have utilised that roofing material?—Absolutely.

5906. Through that not being done the Pool has made a far greater loss than otherwise it would have done?—It rendered itself liable to a greater loss.

5907. The management of the Scheme, I suppose, never intended to cover that stack at Nyabing?—No.

5908. your co-operative society, in view of the knowledge you had, never suggested to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., that they should utilise the iron which was lying idle there?—I am not sure of that, but the society may have mentioned it.

5909. by the CHAIRMAN: How long is it since you cleared up those sidings?—I cannot answer that. I only knew a few hours ago that you were sitting here, and therefore I am not quite as prepared as I might have been.

5910. You were at Nyabing, ad you cannot say how long the stack was there?—A lot of early rain fell on the stack there.

5911. Seeing that such a small quantity of wheat was stored there this year, and that it had to be trucked from there prior to the end of April, do you think that the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., would have roofed it in?—If they had had the sole handling they would have roofed it. Not only did the wheat get wet in that stack but it went into the Tambellup stack wet. I am assured by the lumpers that the trucks which were sent to us were lousy with weevils. I forgot to mention that there are 500 or 600 bags of wheat at Tambellup for which the Southern Farmers there have some buyers. The wheat is rotting there, and we want it for fowls' feed.

5912. Did you ever receive from the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., that if a sample of damaged wheat in your district could be sent down a price would be fixed?—No. I sent them a sample and they asked me what I could do with it, but I sold it in the district at the price advised by the Westralian Farmers.

(The witness retired.)

ROBERT LAWSON RICHARDSON, Merchant, Katanning, sworn and examined:

5913. By the CHAIRMAN: I understand you desire to give some evidence before the Commission?—What I want to bring under your notive is the difficulty which we are experiencing in getting a reasonable sample of wheat for our poultry friends. I suppose we are one of the largest collectors of eggs in the State, that is, in our capacity as storekeepers, and we require about 500 bags of wheat annually to sell as retail people. We were not able to buy that last year. Fortunately, we are carrying over a nice little bit from the previous years. We are genuine retail traders, and I think the Wheat Commission should help us to get what we need direct from the farmers instead of from the Scheme. Why do you want to impose that extra handling charge on the poor fellow who is keeping a few fowls and getting a living out of them?

5914. A lot of the wheat which has been sold for poultry, pigs, etc, has been damaged wheat?—You realise what that means to me. What I purchase has to go into my bulk store. I have there pearl barley, macaroni, cornflour, and all kinds of eatables in bulk, and if I put weevily wheat there what will the rest of my stock be worth to me. It is more than I dare do. I have communicated with Dalgety & Co., and they have offered me wheat, but I could not touch it.

5915. You think that storekeepers should be allowed to purchase new wheat?—If the wheat were clear of weevil I night do something with it, but even then it is not right to tax the poultry grower with the extra handling which is involved by the wheat going into the Pool. I got a good deal of rejected wheat at 4s. and I sell that to the poultry keeper at 4s. 6d. in bag lots.

5916. There has been some wheat sold by the farmers to the storekeepers?—So I hear.

5917. You realise that under the Scheme once a farmer is allowed to sell wheat to the storekeepers it might open up the question whether he should not be allowed to sell outside the Scheme the whole of his wheat?—There may be difficulties of that sort, but you can restrict us to our normal requirements. If I started to buy wheat in a large way and passed it over to the miller, there would be complaint. Besides I could not buy a large quantity without being detected.

5918. You think then that the Scheme should ascertain the requirement for the season from the various storekeepers?—We should be allowed to buy direct from the farmer just our requirement.

5919. That can be done now with the permission of the Minister?—We understood that the restrictions were such that they prohibited us doing that. We have a few customers on the Boyup Railway; they wrote to us for a bushel for wheat, but the railways would not take it as we were not traders. The restriction now has been removed.

5920. By Mr. BROWN: As storekeeper would you sell f.a.q. wheat for poultry?—Yes, it is preferred.