minimise this danger they would have saved nearly half their loss. This wetting is the first cause of weevil. With regard to the 1915-16 harvest, we had pretty heavy rains in January, and had a good deal of trouble during the beginning of 1916. On the 14th January in Perth we had 84 points of rain. In some places in the country the rainfall was 100 points. A lot of our wheat was standing in the paddocks in bags. With all the care that may be exercised, if these bags of wheat are left for a couple of days in a paddock there will be a mouldy growth at the bottom of the bags that are on the ground. At that time of the year a farmer can brush that mouldy growth off, so that it cannot be seen on the bags. Some of these bags will therefore get into our stacks, no matter how much care is taken in the matter. This is one of the first causes of weevil. We had a lot of wheat in transit in 1915-16. We had portion of the big wheat shed at Fremantle then which we were able to use for re-conditioning. In 1916-17 we had no shed in which to re-condition, and we were in unfortunate circumstances. So far as I possibly could, I covered all my wheat. We always send out what we call our pre-harvest instructions to our agents. On the 20th January I sent out a circular to them impressing upon them the necessity for getting their stacks covered. On the 10th, further instructions as to how to roof were sent out. They had received this previously, but we had a little discussion with the Minister and the Wheat Board. They took exception to my method of covering. My method is a little more wasteful in regard to iron. Some of the iron was supplied by the Government and some by ourselves. On the 14th February we sent out a circular, "When will stacks be completed?" and also asked "What stacks are covered?" I sent two telegrams to two batches of agents then. On the 23rd March I wrote, "Finish up stacks, roof at once, how much is covered?" on the 30th March I said, "Give our circular of 23rd urgent attention, obligatory get stacks protected against weather." On the 19th May I said, "Screens should all be on." I do not mind the screens not going on at the start of the season, because those rains which strike the side of the stack do not hurt until we get the heavy rains. Iron ought to be on top of the stacks so that no wet can get into the heart of the wheat. I think I have covered most of our 1915-16 operations. The Board were frightened to spend a pound to save two. There was really no officer who was experienced in the handling of wheat either on the Board or the Advisory Committee. I am speaking of the handling of large quantities of wheat. Even when Mr. Sibbald came on he had quite a different proposition to that at the Northam mill, where they had the best stores in the State. He had to deal with wheat lying all over the country in open stacks, such as were at Fremantle and ports like Geraldton. I do not think the practical side of the work was sufficiently looked after. We were very much harassed during the 1915-16 season. There is not much I can say as regards 1916-17 that is not covered by what I have said about 1915-16. The same thing ran right through, but I may give one or two instances. Towards the middle of the 1916-17 season—that would be in 1917—you will remember there were very heavy rains, causing washaways on the railways, and there were some heavy floods. At that time I had a stack at Three Springs. I thought this one of the best stacking sites we had—good, fairly dry ground, a little higher than the rails. If you gentlemen have been at Three Springs you will know that near the Post Office there is a dry watercourse. That dry watercourse ran a regular river, and my stack was flooded two bags high. Acting on the general principle laid down for us by Mr. Johnson when we took on the job, namely, to do for the Board as we would do for ourselves, I immediately wired up to my agent to secure trucks and get the stack away at once. We had got about 1,200 or 1,500 bags out of the stack, when the Wheat Board absolutely stopped us from taking another bag out of that stack. With the little bit we had done, we had got down to the bottom bag; that is, in taking the 1,500 or so bags off the end of the stack; and we had absolutely not a bag of unmarketable wheat there. The Board stopped us, however, and I could not take the wheat to Fremantle or put it into the mill, and the Board could not find a place for me to put it. However, they absolutely stopped me from moving that wheat. The wheat was not taken away for four months. Now, I have at three Springs a particularly good agent, a man in whom, as the result of years of working with him, I have the utmost confidence, Charles Maley. He is always there when he is wanted, and is himself a bullock at work. Only a few weeks ago he told me that when he took down the stack four months afterwards the centre was black up to seven bags high. The stack turned out a shortage of 753 bags. Of course, the stack had made a certain amount of weight. In re-bagging about 100 tons of wheat were destroyed—carted away and burnt as absolutely unmarketable. The sole reason for that was that a stack which had been flooded two bags high had not been removed. You must remember that under our agreement we are not responsible for flooding from below, and this was an absolute case of flooding from below. But I would not fight the Board in detail, because our liability was done. This stack contained 19,500 bags. I am of opinion that that stack should not have cost the board 1,000 bags, which would have realised 3s. 6d. per bushel. The rest of the stack should have been all f.a.q. There should not have been more than 30 or 40 bags, the sweepings at the bottom, not worth picking up. All the rest should have been marketable. The one bottom tier should have been marketable at 3s. 6d. per bushel. By working in the top tiers, which had not got wet, judiciously, the whole stack would have been f.a.q. wheat. I had a stack at Dumbleyung in 1912-13, when the railways got washed away, and the department were a fortnight getting the line in order and made good. There was a washaway at Tambellup, and on the Wagin line. That Dumbleyung stack got flooded just about two bags high. The Three Springs stack cost 2.41d. per bag for handling charges; the Dumbleyung stack cost 1.86d. But I had the Dumbleyung stack all away in a fortnight. I did send a few trucks here, but I think there was very little wheat out of the stack that did not go to Albany for shipment as f.a.q. wheat; and there was no complaint from London. If the loss on the Three Springs stack amounts to less that £700 or £1,000 I shall be greatly surprised. But the loss ought not to have been more than £250 or £300. There is an instance of the board compelling me, as their agent, to do what I knew to be wrong. I could not budge the officers of the board one bit. If we had moved that Three Springs stack to Fremantle and restacked it there and then brought it up to the mills afterwards, it would have been a better proposition. The only reason why that sort of thing occurs under the board's management is that the board had not one really experienced man, one who really knew the business. If they had had a man with the experience I have had, 30 years, such a thing would not have occurred. I have been in a hole more than once or twice, and getting into a lot of holes teaches you how to get out of a hole.

6195. Did you find any other stacks similarly situated?—Not like that; not in the Scheme's time. But I did have cases of stacks that I thought should have been removed for various reasons, and which I advised the board to remove.

6196. On account of their being damaged by mice or by water?—Or for other reasons. We had various instances of sidings at which stacks had not been built previously, or not to the same extent, and where the ground was not solid enough—our dunnage sank right into the ground. I recommended the removal of one or two of those. Then we had some mice stacks. At Gwambygine, between York and Beverley, was the first stack that I got badly mice infested. The stack was very high and narrow. A corner of the stack came out, then another corner. It was with the mice and being on built-up ground and express trains running through, the stacks start to come down. I had all the bother in the world to get permission to take 1,000 bags down, and I had more worry over that stack than enough. The cost of the stack was very high. The right thing to do with the stack, whatever it cost, was to take it right down, but I was not allowed to do so.

6197. By Mr BROWN: How many bags were there?—About 6,000 or 7,000 bags. It was a long, high, narrow stack, and being built on top of an embankment there was vibration.

6198. By the CHAIRMAN: You think a lot of damage was done to the wheat by permission not being