given to remove the stacks?—I am certain of it. I will not say they did not have good reasons; perhaps in one or two instances they had. But we did not know what the reasons were.

6199. In regard to the re-conditioning claims, I notice, in looking through the file, that some of the re-conditioning that was carried out the dockages were made to the farmers to pay for that?—Not for re-conditioning. As far as my account was concerned?

6200. Yes?—Absolutely none. I think I might make it quite clear to you by telling you how I did my work. As far as the farmers were concerned they were only docked by me or by my agents for inferior quality, unless the wheat was damaged. I do not suppose there are half a dozen instances otherwise, because my men were instructed to refuse to accept the wheat. If any came in mouldy at the bottom of the bags it had to be re-bagged and re-weighed and the mouldy wheat was chucked out. I do not think there was any docking on that account, but there was docking for inferior quality, and in 1916-17 there was dockaging for second-hand bags. In connection with the 1915-16 dockage, I have only settled up last week finally with the Scheme, and the last thing I had to deal with was the question of dockage. My agent was responsible for the outturn of the quality and I was responsible for my agent. The Scheme had no claim against me for quality other than what had been docked off the certificates. They were satisfied at my dockages and that my certificates were quite sufficient. Where I had docked my agent in excess, I held it in escrow. I had dockages for shortage of outturn and I went through the matter with the Scheme in the last fortnight. I had let down my agents a bit lightly and I went through the matter with Mr Hall and he said it was purely a matter for me to deal with. As far as I am concerned there is no question of anything held against the farmer. The farmers' business was final. In one instance only a farmer sent some wheat that we could not assess the value of. It was very smutty. My agent sent it down, but it was assessed satisfactorily. There was no other instance of any farmer I have dealt with of anything being held up after it has passed his wagon. It was then my responsibility or that of my agent.

6201. Here is a ;letter written from your office dated the 23rd March, 1916—

The Secretary, State Wheat Marketing Committee. Sir, Paragraph 4A of our agreement provides for the agent re-sampling and re-conditioning; this is being done by us when necessary and shown by us on certificate as a dockage against same. As we are paying cash out of pocket for this work, we think we should be paid same as in the case of railway freight. We would be pleased if you would put the matter before your committee and advise us as to the methods to be followed to obtain payment from you of the amount we have deducted from the certificate.

This is signed by Mr. Downe. The secretary wrote to you on the 4th April. He said—

Adverting to your letter of the 23rd ultimo, with respect to resampling and reconditioning wheat, I have to confess that I am at a loss to know what you really desire of my committee, seeing that under your agency agreement you are responsible for this work, and that it is part of your agency duties for which you receive certain remuneration.

Mr Downing writes again on the 7th April in reply to your letter.

In reply to your letter of the 4th inst. relative to resampling and reconditioning of wheat, this work is being done by us when necessary, and the cost of same is being deducted from the certificate issued to the farmer who delivers the wheat. Therefore, your committee pays him that amount less for the wheat which it receives from us in good condition, and as we have paid for the work the amount should be refunded to us.

In reply to that you get this on the 28th April—

Adverting to your letter of the 7th inst., I have to advise you that my committee has decided that if any reconditioning is effected by agents before wheat is received into stack, and particulars thereof are furnished at the time to the committee, consideration will be given at the termination of the Pool to making an allowance to agents for the cost of such work, provided the expense is not greater that the deductions made for that purpose on the certificates for advance to farmers. Yours faithfully, Secretary.

?—I would not like to give an answer to that definitely, but what I think from that is that it refers to the wheat that got wet in the field during the January and February rains.

6202. As soon as I saw it I sent down to find out what it meant, and I got this book (indicated) sent up. You see it is mentioned there?—I am not quite prepared to say that. Mr Downie probably consulted me about it, and probably I left him to deal with it. If you will let me have the particulars, I will either send up a written explanation from Mr Downie or send Mr Downie himself up.

6203. If a farmer sends in his wheat in bad condition is he docked not only for inferior quality but for reconditioning as well?—The instance given might have been one in which the wheat was sent direct to us from the farmer, in which case the farmer would take the place of our agent, and it would be right and proper to recondition his wheat and charge him for it.

6204. Would it be better if the Scheme refused to accept such wheat until it was cleaned?—Consider the position of the farmer, who would have to cart it all the way back to his farm. Our policy always is to do the best we can in the circumstances. Regarded as a whole, the farmers play a very fair game.

6205. It would not happen more than once?—Not with the same man.

6206. And so we would get much cleaner wheat than at present?—I think this complaint applies to merely one or two cases. It is not right to receive inferior wheat into the Pool without dockage, whether for lack of quality of for inferiority of bags. Of course, special instances require special treatment. I will get you particulars of those cases and let you have them.

6207. You say that at the beginning of the Scheme available shipping was passing by this State?—I think that is laid down pretty clearly in Mr Johnson's evidence.

6208. It was owing to their being no wheat available?—That is so. The wheat was not coming in as fast as it should have been.

6209. You also say that because you did not understand how long the wheat would have to remain, you did not build your stacks as well as you might otherwise have done?—In 1915-16 I was asked to deal with the wheat as it came in in dumps. I knew then that I was up against it as the wheat would be held until the railway was built, and I built the best stacks I could. They stood for 22 months, and I believe that only two trucks of weevilly wheat were taken out of a total of 66,000 bags. Had not the Works Department, when constructing the railway, cut a drain into the middle of our stack there would have been very little damage indeed. I doctored those stacks with bisulphide of carbon and sulphur. Those stacks stood well, but my stacks of 1915-16, other than the dumps, were built with ordinary care with the labour then available.

6210. Under the agreement of 1917-18 the Scheme has to provide the roofing and even to say whether the stack is to be roofed?—Yes.

6211. Do you think that is a good principle?—I am a bit of a crank on roofing. I think it was a crime to have allowed so much iron to go out of the State. I think that if a stack is intended to remain only a fortnight it should be roofed. It does not pay to be caught by the rain. Where there is any chance at all of having to hold the wheat I would not let a drop of rain touch it whatever the cost. Every bag of wheat should if possible be roofed no later than the day after it is received.

6212. You think that responsibility should be left with the acquiring agents?—I would like to have the responsibility of it myself, because I would then know where the responsibility lay. It certainly should be the responsibility of the man who is paid to do the work. When I made my agreement for the Kumminin dumps with Mr Johnson I wanted to do everything, but he and his officers said, "No, we ask you to stack the wheat, cover it, and look after it." They were to find all material. I asked them what about dunnage, and they said that they could get dunnage from the cockies of the district. I asked them what about getting the stuff carted out, and they said that the farmers