Wheat (1) - Part 3

Image 294
image 95 of 100

This transcription is complete

6030. Do you not think it would be possible, under such conditions, to refuse to accept such wheat when sent to the sidings?—I think so, unless it is stacked separately.

6031. If stacked separately and docked it would make a difference?—Yes. As regards shipment, that would not pass as f.a.q.

6032. Dockage causes a lot of dissatisfaction, and if the wheat is returned to the farmer he would have to stand his own dockage, by reason of the additional labour?—That is right.

6033. Do you think it would be better to make a farmer clean up the wheat before he sent it in?—Yes. It seems unreasonable that a man sending in dirty wheat should get the same price as a man sending in a prime sample.

6034. By Mr. HARRISON: Do you consider that a quantity of wheat has been sent to this depot that should either have gone direct to the collecting agent as low quality wheat, or should have been disposed of at the centre where it was received?—I think a lot should have been disposed of at the country centres, or sent direct to Dalgety's. I would like to mention to you that the trucks we get here are very dirty and they often have coal and gravel in them. If a couple of bags burst, all the wheat in them is lost on account of the dirt in the trucks. If the trucks were cleaned we could save hundreds of bags of wheat in transit.

6035. Do you think that the duty of keeping the trucks clean should rest with the Railways?—I think the agents should keep them clean. The work of cleaning trucks in Geraldton is done by the acquiring agents.

6036. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you find the bags come in badly holed?—Yes, many are mice eaten and they are never patched or repaired. This is due to the neglect of the agents. Some stuff which has been sent down from Doodlakine should have been dumped up there instead of being railed here. It was simply muck.

(The witness retired.)

DANIEL HAYES, Officer in charge of the office work, tallying and sampling, Spencer's Brook, sworn and examined:

6037. By the CHAIRMAN: How long have you been here?—Since the commencement of the stacking of the wheat.

6038. Were you employed in the wheat trade before that?—I have been in the produce trade all my life, and in the wheat trade for about 20 years.

6039. Did you get instructions from the central office in Perth in regard to dockages and other matters?—Yes.

6040. Have you a copy of your instructions?—Yes. (Produced.)

6041. I notice this does not give you the weight. It instructs you what you shall dock?—They also sent me a copy of the Westralian Farmers' circular to their agents. That gives it.

6042. Did this come to you from the Scheme, or was it sent to you from the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—The Scheme sent it.

6043. The f.a.q. sample is estimated at 61lbs.?—That was the first I received.

6044. Did you receive another one after that?—Only the copy of the letter sent to the Westralian Farmers on the 31st January, 1918.

6045. I note that this is a letter sent by the manager of the Scheme to the Westralian Farmers, Ltd. They state in it that the effect of the alteration of the f.a.q. sample will be that the scale of dockage already decided upon will still obtain but they will commence with wheat going 58lbs. to the bushel instead of 60lbs. as formerly?—The 60lbs. was the first, and since then we have been docking at anything under 59lbs.

6046. You never had sent to you the f.a.q. standard fixed by the Chamber of Commerce?—Yes.

6047. What was it?—I believe it was 61½lbs. I have it on the file. It is as follows:—

To the Officer in Charge, Spencer's Brook.

The f.a.q. standard for this season has not been fixed by the Perth Chamber of Commerce at 60½lbs. per bushel. This, however will in no way affect at the present system of light weight dockage, which commences at a dock of 1d. per bushel on the 58lbs. bushel. J. C. Keys, 28/2/18.

6048. I note here that the Minister approved of the alteration; thereby the Minister himself fixed the standard below that fixed by the Chamber of Commerce?—That is so.

6049. And for any wheat you accepted prior to this letter of the 31st January an allowance had to be made?—We did not do it here. We anticipated it would be done.

6050. The whole of the sampling and weighing has been under your jurisdiction?—Yes.

6051. Do you sample each bag?—We are supposed to, but I cannot say that every bag is sampled.

6052. In regard to weighing, do you weigh each bag?—Only some out of a truck for testing purposes. Some wheat came down without marks and that had to be weighed.

6053. Do you receive any wheat from unattended sidings, sent direct from the farm?—Yes.

6054. You have to see that every one of those bags is sampled and weighed?—Yes.

6055. Do the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., have an officer here to check the sampling?—Yes, here, but not at the truck. They take a sample and it is bagged. If it is under f.a.q. they send a sample to the office for docking.

6056. Was that done previously by the other agents?—I do not think so. The same system has been adopted as when the merchants were buying. No man was kept to check and there has been no man here to check us, except, of course, on the f.a.q. samples.

6057. There is one-eighth of a penny per bag put down in the Westralian Farmers' agreement for checking and weighing a sample. Was that not put down for the purpose of checking samples at depots?—I should say it was for weighing at the other end.

6058. You have had weevil wheat sent in here?—Plenty of it.

6059. Were you notified by the acquiring agent or sub-agent that weevily wheat was being sent in?—We had to find out for ourselves.

6060. Do you think you should be notified for the safety of the stacks?—I do. Carelessness was shown in sending in weevily wheat. We have a difficulty in finding it, particularly in regard to the rushing methods that were adopted here.

6061. If you just sampled a bag here and there you would not find it?—Samplers were supposed to sample every bag, but it was impossible for them to do it as the work was going on too rapidly for them.

6062. If every bag was not sampled it would be impossible for you to find out whether the wheat was weevily or not, and thereby the whole of the wheat might be endangered through the carelessness of the agent in not notifying you?—That is so.

6063. You have a lot of damaged wheat sent in here. Has that been damaged in the stack?—A lot has been damaged in the stack and a lot has been damaged in the truck. The damage in the truck was on account of the wet. That wheat could be dried.

6064. Was a system of drying adopted here?—Only latterly, during the past three or four months. Prior to that it was stacked wet.

6065. That means that the wheat will go musty?—Yes.

6066. What was done with the wet wheat?—It was shunted to another shed and re-conditioned before stacking. The best wheat was picked out and the inferior wheat was bagged by itself and put into a reject stack.

6067. What is the quantity of wheat you have received here altogether?—Of f.a.q. 1,153,479 bags; of inferior wheat 79,842 bags; and sweepings 4,508 bags.

6068. When the sweepings were sent in to you were they sent in as sweepings?—Yes, they were railed as such.

6069. Was it intended to stack the sweepings at this depot?—We had instructions to receive sweepings.

6070. That means then that sweepings would be saddled with double handling by coming to this depot?—Yes; some should never have come here, the stuff was too inferior. Some of it would not pay for railing. We had to bury some of it—about 34 bags. That came from Wubin, 17 bags, and a similar number from Bruce Rock, I think it was.